get

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail about what is returned: a dependency report with per-dependency classification (satisfied/blocking/external/missing), dependants, open questions, and acceptance criteria. It doesn't mention error behavior when ref is not found, but the enrichment of return content is a meaningful addition beyond the annotation.

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?

A single tightly-packed sentence with zero waste, front-loading the primary purpose and then enumerating return content. Nothing to trim.

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 read-only detail tool with no output schema, the description gives a helpful inventory of returned fields, which is valuable. However, it doesn't address the undocumented 'collection' parameter, error cases, or how this differs from sibling read tools like report/graph. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 50%. The 'ref' parameter is well-documented in the schema (formats: 'collection#n', bare number, or path) and the description's parenthetical '(ticket/issue)' reinforces that. The 'collection' parameter has no documentation in either schema or description, leaving a gap the description does not compensate for. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Full detail of one initiative (ticket/issue).' The term 'get' plus the enumerated detail fields make the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'report' or 'fields', but the resource and output focus are specific enough.

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 when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, no mention of prerequisites. With 33 sibling tools including report, fields, ready, and graph (which also return initiative data), the description does not help the agent choose among them.

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