pylon_get_issue

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Get complete details' implying a read operation with no side effects, but does not confirm idempotency, access requirements, or potential errors. Minimally adequate for a simple get.

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 with no superfluous words. Action stated at the beginning. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It mentions that it provides 'complete details' and contrasts with message tools, but could clarify what is not included (e.g., messages, followers).

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with description 'Pylon issue ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'specific issue', indicating it retrieves issue details. It contrasts with message tools, but does not differentiate from other get tools like pylon_get_issue_with_messages or pylon_get_issue_followers.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to 'Prefer this over message tools when you only need issue metadata', which helps in tool selection. However, it does not address when to use sibling tools that also retrieve issue data (e.g., with messages or followers).

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