get_issue

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

The description uses 'Fetch' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or error behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden but only partially discloses behavior.

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 concise and well-structured, covering the purpose, arguments, and return value in just a few lines without extraneous information.

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 fetch tool, the description provides all essential context, including parameter explanations and the return type ('Formatted string with issue details'). It is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Both parameters are described with meaningful details, especially 'issue_iid' with its clarification about the internal ID shown in the GitLab UI. This significantly enhances the bare schema, which lacks 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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('issue details'), making its purpose unambiguous. The name 'get_issue' further reinforces this, and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like 'get_merge_request'.

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?

While the purpose implies usage for retrieving issue details, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention of specific scenarios. The description is adequate but lacks contextual cues for decision-making.

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