getIssue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical context beyond that: the default branch behavior, the requirement to pass a ref for non-main work, and the mutual exclusion rule. No contradiction; it enriches the behavioral profile.

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 with zero wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the scoping caveat and discovery hints are packed efficiently into the second sentence.

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 output schema exists, return format need not be repeated. The description covers purpose, scope, parameter interactions, and discovery methods. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the default branch, the mutual exclusivity, and how to discover valid values—this goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one issue by key'), and describes the return content ('full issue details and changelog'). It distinguishes from sibling listIssues and getIssueSnippets by specifying single-issue retrieval and history inclusion.

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 explains when to use the default vs. pass refs, names the alternatives (listProjectBranches / listProjectPullRequests) for discovery, and notes the mutual exclusivity of branch and pullRequest. This is strong when-to-use guidance.

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