gitlab_issue_get

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe read profile, and an output schema covers return values. The description adds the useful 'project-scoped iid' scoping note, but says nothing about error behavior (e.g. missing project or iid) or auth needs. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 fits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every word (verb, resource, scope, key) earns its place.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and readOnlyHint, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. Only minor behavioral context (error cases) is absent, and that is not essential here.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema (project id/path forms, iid semantics). The description's 'project-scoped iid' phrasing adds no meaning beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (issue) with scope ('one issue', 'project-scoped iid'), which distinguishes it from the list-oriented sibling gitlab_project_issues. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the singular/plural contrast makes the intent clear.

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 only implied: the mention of a project-scoped iid signals 'fetch a single known issue', but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives like gitlab_project_issues for listing. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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