get_issue

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns details including comments and attachments, which is useful, but it doesn't cover other important traits like whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination for large comments/attachments. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides parameter details. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). Every sentence earns its place by adding clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, with no annotations, it lacks behavioral context like safety or performance traits, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent's understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema: it explains that 'issue_id' is an 'Issue number', clarifying the parameter's purpose. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title 'Issue Id' and type 'integer'), this compensation is valuable. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples, keeping it from a perfect score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns details of the specified issue, including comments and attachments.' It specifies the verb ('returns details') and resource ('issue'), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_issues (which lists multiple issues) and create_issue/update_issue (which modify issues). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_project or search_issues_full, which are also read operations on related resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you need details of a specific issue (vs. list_issues for multiple issues), but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_issues_full or list_issues_with_journals. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.