get_issue

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which the description does not contradict. The description adds no extra side-effect information, but given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 brief and to the point, using only two sentences. It conveys the essential information without fluff or redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

The description lists what the tool returns (status, exception message, counts, timestamps), which is sufficient given there is no output schema. Combined with the sibling context, it provides enough information for correct usage.

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 single parameter issue_id has a complete schema description (format and meaning), so the tool description adds no additional semantic value. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving specific issue details such as status, exception message, occurrence counts, and timestamps. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('issue'), making the action unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly directs users to 'Use list_events for stack traces,' providing a clear alternative and condition for when this tool should not be used. This helps distinguish it from sibling tools and gives actionable guidance.

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