get_issue

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

The description states 'Read-only' and 'token-efficient', disclosing behavioral traits. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not detail authentication or rate limits, but for a simple read tool it is adequate.

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 sentences, extremely concise and front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence adds 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, an output schema, and clear sibling differentiation, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, example, and read-only nature.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond the schema, but it provides an example usage with '0042', which is helpful but does not significantly enhance semantics.

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 reads one specific issue's full history by ID, using the verb 'Read' and resource 'issue's full history'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_summary' by noting it provides individual context instead of the whole summary.

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 says 'Use this when you only need one issue's context instead of the whole summary', providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent.

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