Get Issue

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

Description goes beyond annotations by detailing what the response contains (all fields including notes, attachments, relationships) and that notes are always bundled. Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive, so no contradiction. Could mention authorization requirements or error handling, but safe operations are well covered.

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?

Two sentences are highly concise and informative. First sentence states purpose and parameter, second sentence adds value about included fields and avoids redundant calls. No wasted words.

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-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, and relationship to other tools. Lacks error conditions or authentication context, but these are less critical given annotations and simplicity.

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?

Only one parameter 'id' with schema description 'Numeric issue ID'. Description adds 'by its numeric ID' which reinforces but does not add new semantics. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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?

Clearly states 'Retrieve a single MantisBT issue by its numeric ID', specifying verb (retrieve), resource (single issue), and identifier (numeric ID). Distinguishes from siblings like list_issues (multiple issues) and list_notes (notes separately).

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?

Explicitly notes that 'Notes are always included — no separate list_notes call needed', providing clear context for when to use this tool rather than list_notes. However, does not mention alternatives for other fields like attachments or relationships, but implies they are included.

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