get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and gives parameter names; it does not disclose response details, error behavior, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal, falling short of the expected transparency for an unannotated tool.

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 highly concise: a one-sentence summary followed by two parameter lines. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no redundancy or irrelevant 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?

The tool is a simple get-by-IDs operation, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, the description lacks any context to differentiate it from similar sibling tools (e.g., readable-identifier variants) and provides no usage scenario, making it minimally complete rather than fully.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining that both parameters are 'UUID identifier' strings, providing format context beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. This is useful but could include more detail (e.g., where to obtain these IDs).

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 details of a specific issue' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific issue'). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_issue_using_readable_identifier or get_issue_details_by_readable_id, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other issue-fetching tools would be more appropriate, which is a clear gap given the many similar sibling tools.

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