gh_get_issue

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). Since annotations already cover read-only and side-effect-free behavior, the description adds no extra context but does not contradict the annotations.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous detail. It is perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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?

The description omits any contextual details such as edge cases, required permissions, or relationships between parameters. While an output schema exists (so return values are not required), the lack of additional context limits the agent's ability to handle unusual scenarios.

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 input schema has three parameters (owner, repo, number) with no descriptions. The description does not explain any of them, leaving the agent to infer their meanings. This is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 action (get details) and the target (a specific issue or pull request), with emphasis on 'specific' and inclusion of 'body'. This unambiguously conveys the tool's primary function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gh_get_pr or gh_list_issues. It lacks context about scenarios, prerequisites, or distinguishing use cases.

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