get_issue_details_by_readable_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns project_id, issue_id, current state, and other details, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or edge cases, leaving moderate transparency gaps.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose. The args block is somewhat redundant with the schema but adds useful examples, and the overall length is appropriate.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, the lack of clarification relative to the nearly identical sibling 'get_issue_using_readable_identifier' is a notable completeness gap, and error conditions are not addressed.

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?

The schema has no description for the parameter (0% coverage), so the description's Args section adds meaning by explaining the readable ID format and providing examples. This compensates for the missing 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 gets full issue details using a readable ID, with a concrete example. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_issue_using_readable_identifier', which appears to serve the same purpose, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you have a readable ID. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the overlapping sibling 'get_issue_using_readable_identifier' or 'get_issue', nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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