get_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the read-only nature by saying 'Get full details' and lists the fields returned, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, access requirements, or any side effects, which are not substantial for a simple getter but still represent a gap.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently lists the returned fields. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, the resource, the parameter source, and the exact fields returned. It sufficiently distinguishes this tool from its sibling tools and covers the essential context an agent needs.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% and already explains the parameter (numeric ID, example, and source from list_issues). The description merely repeats 'numeric ID' without adding new information. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'specific issue', and specifies it's by numeric ID. It also enumerates the returned fields (title, culprit, metadata, tags, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_issues (which lists) and get_event (which gets events).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve full details of a single issue. It also gives a hint that issue IDs come from list_issues, which is a practical usage pointer. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools for similar purposes, so it falls short of a 5.

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