get_issue_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose error handling, authentication requirements, or any side effects. However, the presence of an output schema covers return structure, and the operation is intuitively safe.

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 extremely concise, with one purpose sentence and a clean Args block. Every line adds value, and the parameter documentation is well-structured for quick scanning. There is no redundant 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?

This is a simple tool with two required parameters and an output schema that documents return values. The description covers purpose and parameter semantics sufficiently. The lack of usage guidance is a minor gap but not critical given the clarity of the resource name.

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 identifies both parameters as 'UUID identifier' of the project and issue type, respectively, adding clarity beyond the bare string type in the schema. This clarifies expected format and role, though it does not provide examples or additional constraints.

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 'Get details of a specific issue type' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_issue_type, update_issue_type, and delete_issue_type. The word 'specific' implies retrieval by identifier, matching the provided parameters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools. Since there is no list_issue_type sibling, it is unclear if this is the only way to retrieve issue type details or how it compares to other getters.

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