Get Issue

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral context. It only says 'Get details', which largely restates the title, and fails to disclose that both parameters are optional, whether at least one is required, or what happens if neither is provided. Nor does it mention any read-only guarantees or error semantics.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, though it is brief.

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?

While the output schema covers return values and the input schema covers parameter definitions, the description omits critical operational context: it doesn't clarify that at least one identifier is required or how the tool behaves with both params omitted. It also doesn't differentiate itself from list/search tools, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for a simple get operation.

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 provides full descriptions for key and issueId, including examples, so the schema covers parameter semantics. The description's mention of 'ID or key' aligns with the schema but adds no additional context such as parameter precedence or mutual exclusivity.

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 'Get details of a specific issue by ID or key', identifying the action (get) and resource (issue), and the specificity distinguishes it from list/search siblings. The example 'PT-1' reinforces the expected identifier format.

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 implies this tool is for when you have a known issue ID or key, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like listIssues/searchIssues are not referenced, though the 'specific issue' wording hints at the distinction.

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