get_issue

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

The term 'Read' indicates idempotency, and the description lists what information is returned. However, it omits details on error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which a fully transparent description would include.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose with no filler. It is well-structured and to the point, though slightly more detail could be added without harming conciseness.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description partially explains the return value but does not specify the format or whether it returns the full issue object. It also does not address possible errors or permissions.

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 input schema already covers the single parameter 'id' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning for the parameter, only stating it reads full details for that issue. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 reads a single issue's full detail, listing key attributes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_issues' (which lists summaries) and 'get_attachment' (which retrieves attachments specifically).

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 usage for reading details of one issue, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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