get_issue_status

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

The description discloses the return of issue status and thread messages, and implicitly reveals synchronous GitHub fetching via the skip_sync parameter. This adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, though the exact sync behavior could be more explicit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no redundancy or filler. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

While the description covers what the tool does and parameter guidance, it lacks mention of the return format (no output schema), and does not differentiate from get_entity_submission_status. The description could be more complete for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds usage guidance on choosing entity_id vs issue_number and on when guest_access_token is needed, which adds meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 returns issue status and thread messages, specifies the resource (issue status/messages) and action (return), and provides two ways to identify the issue (entity_id or issue_number), distinguishing it from siblings that likely do not return this exact combination.

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 gives clear context on when to use entity_id vs issue_number and when to provide guest_access_token. However, it does not explicitly address when not to use this tool relative to siblings like get_entity_submission_status, so it lacks exclusions.

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