get_issue_hashes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description explains what is returned (grouping hashes). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is safe or describe any potential side effects, though the read-only nature seems implicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every clause provides useful information: what the hashes are, and why they are useful.

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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the return value and use cases. It could mention whether the result is an array of hashes, but the phrase 'grouping hashes' and the deduplication context imply multiple hashes.

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 100% for the single parameter 'issue_id', which is documented as a numeric ID. The description adds minimal extra meaning—'specific issue' is redundant with the parameter name. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema already fully describes the parameter.

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 tool retrieves grouping hashes (fingerprints) for a specific issue, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('grouping hashes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issue, which fetches full issue details, and list_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 indicates when to use the tool: 'to identify why issues are grouped together or to deduplicate across projects.' This provides clear context and use cases, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives.

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