tea_issue_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'View' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose what details are returned, whether it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or other behaviors. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence. Every word earns its place, and there is no wasted or repetitive content.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states the action and target. While it does not enumerate return fields, the verb 'view' implies retrieval of issue details, which is adequate for a simple read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema: it says 'specific issue' but does not clarify that 'index' is the issue number (already in schema) or any additional parameter nuances. No extra value provided.

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 'View details of a specific issue' clearly identifies the verb (view), resource (issue), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like tea_issues_list (which lists issues) and mutation tools like tea_issue_close. The word 'specific' correctly signals this is for a single issue, not a collection.

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 usage: when you need to see details of one issue, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for listing issues) or mention alternatives such as tea_issues_list. No exclusions or context beyond the basic purpose.

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