get_remote_issue_link_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating behavior; 'Get' conveys a read-only retrieval operation and no destructive side effects. However, it does not mention permissions, not-found behavior, or what the response contains, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key operation and resource. It wastes no words, though it is close to merely restating the tool name in title case.

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 two-parameter lookup with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. The absence of an output schema and annotations means the agent cannot know the return shape or error behavior, but the operation itself is low complexity.

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 100%, and both linkId and issueIdOrKey already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the word 'ID', so it does not compensate further, but it does not need to because the schema is self-sufficient.

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 ('Get') and resource ('remote issue link') with a scope qualifier ('by ID'), so an agent can tell it from get_remote_issue_links, which returns all links for an issue. It does not explicitly name the sibling or mention that an issueIdOrKey is also required, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus get_remote_issue_links or the create/update/delete variants. The only hint is the implicit 'by ID' qualifier; there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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