get-issue-type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets detailed information' without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails. It lacks context on permissions, response format, or potential side effects.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how errors are handled, or other contextual details needed for effective use, leaving significant gaps despite the simple input schema.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (project_id and type_id) adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval requires these IDs, matching the baseline for high schema coverage without extra param details.

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 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific issue type', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-issue' or 'list-issue-types', which would require more specific language about what makes this retrieval unique.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-issue' or 'list-issue-types'. The description implies retrieval of a specific issue type but doesn't clarify prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.

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