gitlab_issue_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned fields (title, description, state, labels, assignees, milestone, dates), which substitutes for the missing output schema; it does not cover not-found behavior or visibility of confidential issues.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the identifying key (iid) comes first and the field list gives immediate value.

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 read with no output schema, enumerating response fields is the right compensation. Only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior for a missing iid or whether notes/attachments require a separate call.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the 'project' parameter is documented in the schema while 'iid' is bare. Saying 'by iid' adds the useful hint that this is the project-scoped issue IID rather than a global id, but it does not clarify the default-project resolution behavior described in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (issue), scope (one, by iid), and even enumerates the returned fields. The word 'one' cleanly separates it from gitlab_issues_list without naming it.

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 singular-lookup framing implies you use this when you already have an iid and need a single issue, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus gitlab_issues_list or guidance on how to obtain an iid. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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