get_issue_using_readable_identifier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, error behavior, or what happens if the issue is not found. The description only explains parameter mapping, not runtime 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 reasonably concise but contains slight redundancy, repeating the FIRST-123 example twice. It is well-structured with an Args section, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it misses usage differentiation from a very similar sibling tool and lacks any behavioral details, which are important for a complete picture.

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 does so effectively by explaining the mapping between readable identifiers and the two parameters, with concrete examples (e.g., FIRST-123 → project_identifier=FIRST, issue_identifier=123).

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 a specific issue using its readable identifier,' with a specific verb and resource. It explains the readable identifier format, but does not explicitly distinguish from the closely named sibling tool 'get_issue_details_by_readable_id'.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: when you have a readable identifier like FIRST-123. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternative tools such as 'get_issue' or 'get_issue_details_by_readable_id'.

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