get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states that the tool returns information, which is essentially its core function, and does not disclose behavior around missing issues, parameter requirements, output format, or any safety attributes.

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 front-loads the core purpose without any fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

This is a simple tool with two well-documented optional parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the basic single-issue retrieval purpose but lacks information about how to choose between the two identifier parameters or what the response contains, leaving a small completeness 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?

The input schema describes both issueId and issueKey with examples, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but with high schema coverage the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb 'returns' and resource 'information about a specific issue', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_issues (plural) and mutation tools. It is immediately clear that this tool targets a single issue.

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 phrase 'a specific issue' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when retrieving details of one issue, not a list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the scope is sufficient guidance.

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