get_issue

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's value is in adding that it returns markdown description. No contradictions; the description complements the annotations well by specifying the content type. No further behavioral traits (e.g., error handling) are needed given the tool's simplicity.

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 extremely concise with two sentences—one for purpose and one for usage. No unnecessary words, and the action is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 retrieval tool with two params and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage, and content type (markdown). It is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool, though it could mention error handling or response format if needed.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described, albeit minimally ('a string that will be trimmed'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra semantics.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'full details for a Huly issue including markdown description'. It also lists specific use cases (view issue content, comments, metadata), effectively distinguishing this read-only tool from sibling tools like list_issues (list) and update_issue (modification).

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 explicitly says 'Use this to view issue content, comments, or full metadata', providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling names make the distinction obvious.

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