get_edit_issue_meta

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet 'Get edit issue metadata' adds nothing beyond the name. The 'Get' verb weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about what the response contains, authentication requirements, or how overrideEditableFlag and overrideScreenSecurity alter returned data. No contradiction with annotations exists because there are none.

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?

Four words with zero waste, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name and omits definitional content that should come before any behavioral detail. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a param surface that includes two permission-gated boolean toggles, the description is the sole source of operational context — and it explains none of it. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, when to call it, or what the override flags do, making reliable selection and invocation impossible from 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself contributes no parameter information, but the schema descriptions are serviceable: issueIdOrKey is self-explanatory, and the two booleans convey their purpose (returning non-editable/hidden fields) with permission caveats, though the permission strings appear truncated mid-sentence.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('edit issue metadata'), which on its face distinguishes it from edit_issue (the mutation itself) and get_create_issue_meta (the creation counterpart). However, it never defines what 'edit issue metadata' actually is — editable fields, field types, allowed values, screens — so an agent must infer the return semantic from the name alone. With roughly 70 siblings, the description does no explicit differentiation work.

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 invoke this tool versus the closely related get_create_issue_meta, edit_issue, or get_issue. The natural pre-edit workflow is only implied by the name ('get edit issue meta'), never stated. Neither exclusions nor alternatives are mentioned.

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