github_get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential error behavior (e.g., 404 if issue does not exist), authentication requirements, or whether the full issue object is returned. This is acceptable for a simple read, but not richly descriptive.

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 sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it highly scannable and efficient. Every word 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 get-by-number tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. The only missing element is a note about how it differs from github_list_issues, but that is relatively minor given the straightforward nature of the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters (owner, repo, number), so the schema already explains each field's meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context, which is fine given the high coverage, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 concise and precisely states the action: 'Get a single issue by number.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like github_list_issues (which lists many) and github_create_issue (which creates), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage: fetch a specific issue when its number is known. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like github_list_issues for browsing issues. The context is self-evident for a simple retrieval tool, but lacks explicit guidance about sibling comparisons.

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