get_issue_relation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the ID is invalid. The description is too minimal for full transparency.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. Every phrase earns its place, front-loading the action 'Get'. The '[Alpha]' prefix is a minor tag but does not detract from conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks output format details and usage context relative to siblings. The completeness is adequate for minimal requirements but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context by noting the parameter is a 'numeric ID' that identifies the relation. This provides semantics beyond the schema's type information, though it does not elaborate on format or constraints beyond the numeric hint.

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', the resource 'a single Redmine issue relation', and the method 'by its numeric ID'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_issue_relations (plural) and create/delete by focusing on a single retrieval by ID.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_issue_relations for multiple relations or delete for removal. It lacks any exclusions or prerequisites, which is insufficient for an agent to decide contextually.

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