boj_github_get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires GitHub authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data or raw content, or handles errors. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this lack of transparency is critical.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get a specific issue,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While under-specified, it meets the criteria for brevity and structure without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't cover purpose differentiation, usage context, behavioral traits, parameter meanings, or return values. For a GitHub API tool interacting with issues, this leaves the agent ill-equipped to use it correctly.

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 0%, meaning parameters (owner, repo, issue_number) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the tool name—it doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., GitHub username, repository name, issue ID), their formats, or constraints. This leaves the agent guessing about input semantics.

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 'Get a specific issue' restates the tool name (boj_github_get_issue) without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('issue') but lacks details about what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieving metadata, comments, or full content) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like boj_github_list_issues or boj_github_search_issues, making it tautological rather than informative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare it to siblings like boj_github_list_issues for multiple issues or boj_github_search_issues for filtered searches, or specify use cases (e.g., retrieving a single issue by number). This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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