fossa_get_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the read-only nature. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'complete detail for one issue', but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as output format or performance implications.

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 concise, a single sentence, but it is vague and fails to convey essential usage nuances. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place because it omits critical information that could be included without excessive length.

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 five parameters, two of which are required, and the presence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter interdependencies, scope options, or any prerequisites, making it hard for an agent to use correctly without external context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description mentions none of the five parameters. It does not explain the role of issue_id, category, scope_type, project_locator, or revision_locator, leaving the agent without necessary guidance to invoke the tool correctly.

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 retrieves an issue, with the verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'issue'. The phrase 'complete detail' hints at returning full issue information, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_issue_overview or get_issue_facets, though not explicitly naming them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_issues or get_issue_overview. It simply states what it does without any context or exclusions.

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