get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description only states the basic purpose with no disclosure of behavior such as response format control, description truncation, or that it may expand nested fields. It adds no context beyond the schema already provides.

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, well-front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no waste or redundant detail.

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 a rich schema and output schema, the description is bare-bones. It lacks any context about when to use this tool among the many issue-related siblings, and it does not mention key behaviors like truncation, output format choices, or the expand parameter. An agent would need to inspect the schema carefully to understand the full scope, but the description itself is insufficient for effective selection.

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 schema achieves 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the description need not reiterate them. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'issue details' with the identifier 'by key'. This uniquely differentiates it from siblings like search_issues or list issues, and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_issues, issue_overview, or entity-related tools. The description provides no context for when it should be preferred, nor any exclusions.

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