get_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool as a read-only retrieval operation ('Gets,' 'retrieve'), specifies it returns 'complete issue data' with six detailed categories of information, and emphasizes it's 'essential for understanding the full context... before making modifications.' However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, but it includes extensive bulleted lists and usage scenarios that, while informative, could be more concise. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating retrieval concepts), and not every sentence earns its place efficiently for a single-parameter tool.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral aspects thoroughly. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more explicit details on return format or error handling to fully compensate for the lack of structured data.

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% description coverage (the 'id' parameter is documented as 'ID of the issue to retrieve'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the 'unique ID' requirement and clarifying that it retrieves 'detailed information about a specific issue,' reinforcing the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic documentation.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('an issue from the task trellis system'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_issues' (which retrieves multiple issues) and 'create_issue'/'update_issue' (which modify issues). The first sentence establishes a precise read-only retrieval operation.

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 explicitly states 'Use this tool to retrieve detailed information about a specific issue by its unique ID,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also lists six specific usage scenarios (e.g., 'Review task details before starting work,' 'Check issue status and dependencies'), which implicitly differentiate it from alternatives like 'list_issues' (for browsing) or modification tools.

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