get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned field set, the backend source, and the discovery prerequisite, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it never states access requirements, error behavior for missing IDs, or explicitly confirms it is non-mutating.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the returned payload, then the prerequisite. The field enumeration earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (type, status, manager, costs/hours, impact, resolution, custom fields). Combined with the ID-discovery prerequisite, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only error/permission behavior is absent.

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 both projectId and issueId are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the indirect hint that issueId comes from get_project_issues, with no added format or scoping detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full detail of a single issue') and names the data source ('v2 REST (source of truth)'). The singular-single framing clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list tool get_project_issues and from the mutation siblings create_issue/update_issue.

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 routes the agent: 'Use get_project_issues first to discover issue IDs,' establishing a prerequisite and a clear alternative for enumeration. It lacks an explicit exclusion (e.g. 'do not use for searching by text'), keeping it short of a 5.

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