Get Issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as rate limits, error handling, or response shape, beyond restating the tool's basic action. No extra value beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-id operation, and 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?

Given the low complexity (2 params, 1 required, no output schema), the description combined with the rich schema and annotations is complete. The verbosity parameter's behavior and defaults are fully explained in the schema, so the description need not repeat them.

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%, with clear descriptions for both 'id' and 'verbosity'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a single issue by id' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from issue_list (multiple issues) and other entity getters like task_get or user_story_get. The word 'single' and 'by id' precisely defines the scope.

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 vs alternatives like issue_list. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and basic purpose.

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