get_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing retrieval behavior (all comment pages, oldest-first) and the semantics of derived fields like `omitted` and `drift.unreconciled_comments`, plus the repair workflow for tickets edited by other clients. Return format details are partly duplicated by the output schema, but the drift semantics are genuinely additive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent sentence carries substantive meaning for a tool with this many return structures. The middle sentences are dense run-ons packing several field semantics together, which costs a little readability but not enough to call it bloated.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to spell out every returned field, and it correctly focuses on interpretation (omitted, findings, drift) and the reconcile-first workflow. An agent has enough to call the tool and act on results, though the relationship to description_history for non-full reads is left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter already documented in-schema as 'Issue identifier (e.g. ENG-123) or UUID'. The description adds no syntax or format nuance for `issue` itself (description_sha is a field of the ticket, not the argument), so the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read one ticket whole') and enumerates exactly what is retrieved: description, comments oldest-first across all pages, editors, relations, children, attachments. This clearly separates it from list_issues (multiple tickets) and comment (writes) among the siblings.

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?

It gives concrete follow-up guidance: when drift.needs_reconcile is true, fold the flagged comments into the description via set_state using reconciled_through, and pass issue.description_sha as the base for the description patch. That names the alternative tool and the triggering condition, though it never explicitly says when to prefer get_issue over description_history.

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