read_issue

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Read' clearly indicates a non-mutating operation, and the 'Returns: Full content of the issue file' discloses the output. However, it does not mention potential errors, authentication needs, or what happens if the ID is invalid. This is acceptable for a read operation but leaves some implicit details unaddressed.

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, using a clear structure: a one-sentence purpose statement, then 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Every element earns its place, with no redundancy or padding. The key information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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 with one parameter, the description is quite complete. It states the purpose, explains the parameter, and indicates the return value. The presence of an output schema covers detailed return structure. The main gaps are the lack of explicit error handling descriptions and no mention of authentication requirements, which are minor for a read operation.

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 provides meaningful detail about the single parameter: 'iss_uniq_id: 8-character unique issue ID.' This goes beyond the bare input schema, specifying the format (8 characters) and confirming its role as a unique identifier. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable and mostly sufficient, though it could elaborate on the exact character set or source of the ID.

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 is highly specific: 'Read an issue's content by its unique ID.' It clearly states the action (read), the resource (issue), and the access method (unique ID). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_issues (which lists issues) and read_note (which reads notes), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear usage conditions: when you have an issue's unique ID and need its content. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the prerequisite (having the ID) and the outcome (getting content) provide clear context. It stops short of naming contrasting siblings like 'create_issue' or 'list_issues', but the guidance is still sufficient for a simple read operation.

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