get-issue-property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic retrieval.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), making it easy to parse quickly. This efficiency is ideal for a simple retrieval tool, though it could benefit from more context.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned (e.g., property values, metadata), error cases, or dependencies on other tools. For a retrieval tool with three required parameters, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'ID of the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between project_id, type_id, and property_id. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get details of a specific issue property' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('issue property'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' include and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-issue' or 'list-issue-properties', which is a missed opportunity for clarity.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get-issue' (for broader issue details) or 'list-issue-properties' (for listing properties), leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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