getIssueRelation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Show' is consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotation provides—no mention of error handling, response format, or any side effects. With annotations present, the description is minimally adequate but not enriched.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks crucial details about parameters and behavior, so the brevity is a deficiency, not a virtue. There is no front-loading of key constraints or usage context.

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 get-by-id tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of the 'format' parameter, what the issueRelationId refers to, or what the response contains. An agent without prior knowledge would be unable to call this tool correctly based on the description alone. The annotations cover only read-only status, leaving major gaps.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter information. The schema defines 'format' (json/xml) and 'issueRelationId' (number), but the description does not explain what these mean, how they affect the call, or which is required. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess at parameter semantics.

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 states a clear verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('issue relation'), indicating a read operation. It distinguishes from siblings by resorting to the singular/plural naming (getIssueRelation vs getIssueRelations), but the description itself does not explicitly differentiate it from the plural listing tool. It is clear enough for a basic get-by-id operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it retrieves a single relation by ID, nor does it contrast with getIssueRelations or create/delete relation tools. An agent would have to infer the intended use from the name and schema, which is insufficient.

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