get_issue_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about required permissions, return shape, error behavior, or what an issue link actually represents.

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 a single, front-loaded phrase with no filler or redundancy. It follows a clear verb+resource structure, though it is sparse enough that it borders on under-specification.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three interdependent parameters, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain that issue_link_id is a relationship identifier or when to choose this tool over list_issue_links, leaving agents to infer behavior from the schema alone.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the schema already documents each field. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates that a specific issue link is fetched.

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 ('Get') and resource ('issue link'), and the word 'specific' indicates a single-link retrieval rather than listing, which helps distinguish it from sibling list_issue_links. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify that an issue link is a relationship between issues.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_issue_links, create_issue_link, or delete_issue_link. It also doesn't state that an existing issue_link_id is needed or how the parameters relate to one another.

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