get_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add useful content-level context (that journals, attachments, relations and sub-issues are returned together), but says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the ID is absent, or cost/pagination.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, the terseness is achieved by dropping the verb and any usage context, so this is under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 2-parameter read tool with annotations but no output schema, the description should at minimum state the operation and how it relates to search_issues and the include parameter. It conveys only the shape of the returned payload, leaving an agent without the verb, usage context, or a full picture of the include options.

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 50%: the include parameter is documented in the schema ('Defaults to journals, attachments, relations, children') while issue_id is not, though it is self-evident. The description roughly mirrors the default include set but uses 'subtasks' where the schema enum says 'children', and it omits the other selectable values (watchers, changesets, allowed_statuses), so it adds 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?

The description names the resource and enumerates what accompanies it (history, attachments, relations, subtasks), so an agent can infer it fetches one issue. But it is a bare noun phrase with no verb ('retrieve', 'fetch'), and it never contrasts itself with the obvious sibling search_issues or the list-style tools, so differentiation is left entirely to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement that this is the single-issue lookup versus search_issues for filtered bulk retrieval, and no prerequisites. The only usage signal is the required issue_id, which comes from the schema, not the description.

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