get_issue

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

The word 'Fetch' clearly conveys a read-only operation, which is helpful in the absence of any annotations. However, the description does not disclose behaviors like not-found handling, the effect of the optional journal parameter, or what the returned issue contains.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise, though it prioritizes brevity over some useful context.

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 single-fetch tool, the description plus schema is minimally viable: an agent can infer that issue is required and that an optional journal may disambiguate. Still, with no output schema and no explanation of the optional parameter or return value, there are clear gaps in completeness.

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%, and the description only maps the issue integer to 'its ID' without explaining the optional journal parameter. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare field names and does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one issue of a journal') with an ID-based retrieval qualifier, making the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_issues or get_current_issue by the singular 'one issue' framing, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single issue when its ID is known, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_issues or get_current_issue. There are no stated exclusions or alternative names, so usage context is only inferred.

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