paperclip_get_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' correctly implies a read-only operation, and the mention of a cost summary gives some indication of the response content. However, it does not disclose anything about response shape, potential errors, or whether any special conditions affect the included cost summary.

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, direct sentence without filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the distinguishing cost-summary detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the resource, the action, and a key part of the response. It could be more complete by listing the other details returned or explicitly distinguishing from get_issue_cost, but these are minor gaps for this low-complexity tool.

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 has 100% coverage: the only parameter, issueId, is described as 'ID of the issue'. The description adds no further semantic detail, such as where to find the ID or what format it should take, so it does not elevate beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific issue'. It also adds a meaningful output feature, 'including cost summary', which helps distinguish it from plain issue lookup. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling paperclip_get_issue_cost, which might also return cost information.

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 use when a specific issue's details are needed, especially given the required issueId. It does not provide explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over paperclip_get_issue_cost or paperclip_list_issues, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting among siblings.

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