get_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds that associated data can be pulled in a single request via relations, which is a useful behavioral trait (reduced round trips), but it says nothing about not-found errors or response shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The main flaw is redundancy: sentence one and sentence two both say the same retrieve-one-issue statement, so one sentence is essentially wasted.

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?

For a simple read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description is adequate but thin: it does not address what happens when the issue does not exist, nor what the returned representation contains. No output schema exists, so that gap is not excused by structured data.

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 reported as 0%, and the description only partially compensates: it explains the intent of the relations parameter (fetch associated data in one request) but never describes the required 'path.issueId' nesting, nor does it mention the parameter's actual name ('with'), calling it 'relations' instead. Marginal added value over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get/Retrieve a specific issue') and specifies the lookup key (unique identifier), which distinguishes it from the collection tool get_issue_collection. However, the first two sentences are near-duplicates and it never names a sibling to contrast with, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives such as get_issue_collection or get_issue_tasks. The only actionable hint is the note about the relations parameter, which is parameter guidance rather than usage guidance.

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