get_issue

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'Get' reasonably implies a read operation and 'including its comments' adds scope, but it does not disclose auth expectations, error cases, or whether it is strictly read-only. Adequate but not richly transparent.

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, short sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: 'specific issue' narrows scope and 'including its comments' clarifies the response shape.

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 an output-schema-backed read tool with 3 self-descriptive required parameters, the description is nearly complete. The main gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation and access notes, but nothing essential prevents an agent from using owner, repo, and issue_number correctly.

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%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented owner, repo, and issue_number parameters. It does not: it only loosely references 'a specific issue' and omits any detail about how issue_number, owner, or repo relate to the operation or expected formats.

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 clearly states the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'a specific issue', and adds 'including its comments' to define what the returned detail covers. This distinguishes it from list_issues (which lists) and from comment creation or pull-request tools.

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 use when a caller needs one issue's detailed data with comments, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like list_issues and get_pull_request are present, but the description leaves the routing logic mostly implicit.

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