get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It reveals the return payload (title, description, status, assigned users, labels, timestamps) and the ID type, but it does not mention error behavior for invalid/unknown IDs or any permission requirements, 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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the action and key identifier, the second lists the return values, and the third provides a workflow hint. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 fetch tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and how to obtain the required issue ID. The absence of error-handling details is not a critical gap for successful invocation.

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 documents all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds useful semantic context by clarifying that issue_id is the 'local numeric ID' and advising the agent to use list_issues to discover valid IDs, which directly aids parameter selection.

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 and resource ('Get full details of a specific issue by its local numeric ID') and clearly distinguishes the tool from list_issues and other issue-related operations. Enumerating the returned fields reinforces exactly what the tool does.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Use list_issues first to discover available issue IDs,' establishing a clear prerequisite workflow. It does not enumerate when not to use the tool, but the context strongly implies this is the single-issue fetch counterpart to list_issues.

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