redmine_get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior directly. It reveals that journals are off by default to save tokens, that a total count is always returned, and that pagination is available via journals_* params. This adds meaningful behavioral insight beyond the simple 'get,' especially the token-saving default and count behavior.

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: the first states the purpose, the second explains the key behavioral default. No filler or redundant information; front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the most important behavioral aspects (default journal behavior, count, pagination, truncation options in schema). It doesn't enumerate every parameter, but the schema does the heavy lifting. It provides a complete functional picture for a read tool, though it doesn't specify return structure beyond the total count.

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 already documents all 8 parameters with rich descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping the journals_* parameters as a family, explaining their purpose (comments) and the default off state, which helps the agent understand the schema's parameters as a cohesive mechanism. It also introduces the term 'comments' as an alias for 'journals.'

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 opens with 'Get a specific issue,' which is a specific verb + resource pair that clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a single issue by ID. This differentiates it from sibling redmine_list_issues (plural) and the mutation tools. It also adds the journals behavior detail, but the core purpose is precise.

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 states the context for fetching one issue and provides guidance on the default comment behavior and how to enable/page through journals. It does not explicitly name alternatives like redmine_list_issues, but the singular 'specific issue' implies when this tool is appropriate; thus it's clear context without exclusions.

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