gh_issue_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states it returns 'full body and comments,' which is useful behavioral info about output content. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior for large comment threads, rate-limit considerations, or what happens with not-found issues. For a read-only viewing tool, this is acceptable but thin.

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, zero waste. Every word earns its place — the verb, resource, and return scope are all captured. This is an example of appropriate conciseness for a straightforward single-resource view tool.

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 view tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what it does, what it returns. There's no complexity requiring extensive documentation. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly, guided by the schema for parameters.

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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds the 'full body and comments' detail but doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. However, with 100% coverage and only 2 simple params (number, repo), the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a baseline of 3-4 is appropriate. The description confirms the scope of what gets returned.

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 'View a single GitHub issue with full body and comments' uses a specific verb (view) and clear resource (single issue) with notable scope (full body and comments). It distinguishes from siblings like gh_issue_create and gh_issue_comment, though it doesn't explicitly name them. It's clear but could explicitly differentiate from gh_issues (which lists issues).

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 this is for viewing one issue's full content, which contextually contrasts with gh_issues (listing). However, there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of whether it requires the repo param or defaults, and no alternatives named. The schema documents the repo default but the description itself provides little usage context.

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