Get GitHub Issue Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint beyond annotations: do not guess owner/repo and instead leave them empty to auto-detect from the current git repository. It does not add auth, rate-limit, or output-shape context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a critical operational warning. There is no wasted language.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description omits how to specify the issue number and does not clarify the unannotated use_test_db parameter, leaving an important invocation gap.

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 67%, and the description mostly repeats the repo/owner schema text about leaving values empty. It says nothing about issue_number, which is essential for identifying the specific issue, and nothing about use_test_db, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: get detailed information about a specific GitHub issue. It implies differentiation from the plural get_github_issues sibling by saying 'specific' issue, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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 only guidance is about not guessing owner/repo values. It does not explain when to use this tool versus get_github_issues, get_github_context, or other GitHub siblings, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions for retrieving an issue.

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