Get Issue Schema

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses provenance (discovered from a sample issue, reflecting active server configuration), freshness behavior (cached with the metadata TTL), the fields_source values "cache"/"live"/"static", and the quirk that MantisBT omits empty notes/attachments/relationships fields. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence followed by two clearly labeled bullets, each sentence carrying distinct information (valid fields, provenance, enum shapes, canonical_name caveat, and the usage trigger). No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the return shape: field lists plus per-enum id/name/label/canonical_name. Combined with freshness and provenance details, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 (project_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains its purpose. The description mentions sample-issue discovery but never states that project_id scopes which sample issue is used, adding little beyond the schema.

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?

A specific verb ('Return') and resource (valid fields/enums for issues on this MantisBT server) are stated, with the two payloads (fields, enums) enumerated. It falls short of a 5 because near-duplicate siblings get_issue_enums and get_issue_fields exist and the description never explains how this tool differs from them, even though 'in one response' hints at the combined scope.

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?

'Call it before building a "select" string or before setting enum fields' gives an explicit trigger condition tied to concrete downstream tools (get_issue, list_issues, search_issues, create_issue, update_issue). There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so an agent must infer that get_issue_enums/get_issue_fields are partial substitutes.

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