ci_issues_get_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it offers only the GET verb to imply a read. It says nothing about authentication, whether the id is a CI issue ID or build action ID, error behavior for missing ids, or the shape of the returned resource.

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 text is short but the brevity is under-specification rather than concision, and the duplicated parenthetical path wastes the only characters present. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing informational to front-load.

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 resource-retrieval endpoint with no output schema, the description should at least characterize what is returned (e.g., issueType, message, fileSource, category) and how id relates to a build action. None of that is present, leaving the agent without enough context to call it confidently.

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 100%: the schema documents both the required id and the fields_ciIssues sparse-fieldset parameter, including its enum values. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a verbatim restatement of the tool name and HTTP path (GET /v1/ciIssues/{id}), duplicating what the identifier already conveys. It never explains in plain language what a CI issue is or what retrieving one yields, so an agent gains nothing beyond the name.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus siblings like ci_build_actions_issues_get_to_many_relationship or ci_test_results_get_instance, nor any prerequisite or context. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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