github_get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Get a specific GitHub issue by number,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. It adds no behavioral context beyond what the name already suggests.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise.

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 read-only fetch operation, the description, combined with a complete input schema and output schema, is nearly sufficient. It lacks mention of authentication prerequisites, which is a minor gap for a GitHub API tool.

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 already describes all three parameters (owner, repo, number) with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'number' aligns with the schema but adds no extra detail about parameter formats or relationships. Therefore, it is at the baseline of 3.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('a specific GitHub issue by number'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_issues (listing) and github_create_issue (creating).

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 implies usage for fetching a single issue by number, but provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., github_list_issues for multiple issues). It is clear enough for a simple read operation, but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative references.

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