getIssue

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with ('Show' implies read), so no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether the response includes included resources (e.g., children, attachments) based on query parameters, or any consequences of the call. With no output schema, the description fails to disclose what an agent should expect.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains a single sentence that adds no information beyond the tool name. There is no front-loading of critical details; the space is wasted on a tautology.

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?

The tool has nested objects, many parameters, and no output schema, making it moderately complex. The description provides no information about return format, pagination, error conditions, or how to combine parameters. Even with the read-only annotation, an agent cannot safely or correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining the meaning of parameters (pathParams with format and issueId, queryParams with include). The description mentions none of these, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance beyond the raw schema types and enums. This is a complete failure to add value.

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 'Show issue' is a tautology of the tool name 'getIssue'. It does not state what resource is retrieved, what fields or format are returned, or how it differs from siblings like getIssues. An agent cannot infer the tool's specific function from this.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it retrieves a single issue by ID or that getIssues handles collections. There are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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