getIssue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile and idempotency. The description adds detail about focus modes affecting compression, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or exact return format, but with output schema present, that's less critical. So a 3 is appropriate.

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-loading the core purpose and then immediately offering alternatives, which is efficient. It packs a lot of information without fluff, every clause adds value.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, its scope, the existence of focus modes for compression, and clear routing to siblings. Given the complexity (returns many data types) and the output schema providing return structure, the description is complete enough. It lacks some details like default focus behavior, but that is minor given the other resources.

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 50%: issueId has only a type/format, no description; focus has a brief description of allowed values. The description explains the purpose of focus modes and names them, adding context not in the schema, such as what each mode compresses (e.g., implementation, timeline, changesets, full). However, it doesn't dive into full parameter semantics for issueId beyond implying it's the known issue ID. With partial coverage, the description adds value but not comprehensive.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves complete context for a single known issue ID, enumerating the included data types (core/custom fields, subtasks, relations, journals, attachments, changesets). It also names three sibling tools (getIssueTree, getIssueJournal, getAttachment) and specifies what each provides, effectively distinguishing from siblings.

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?

Explicitly directs when to use alternatives: recursive structure via getIssueTree, journal retrieval if omitted or shortened via getIssueJournal, and file content via getAttachment. Also mentions focus modes that control compression, implying when to use them, though not exhaustive. Overall, strong guidance on tool selection.

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