get_issue_by_issue_id

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds only the HTTP method and path, which is not behavioral beyond what annotations imply. No additional context about return format, error handling, or side effects is provided.

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 very brief, which is good for conciseness, but it lacks structure and depth. It provides the endpoint and argument but does not front-load useful information beyond the bare minimum.

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 that the tool has an output schema and annotations, the description is still incomplete. It doesn't explain what an issue is, what the response contains, or any error conditions. For a simple get-by-id, more context is needed to guide an agent.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It only states 'issue_id: Path parameter', which clarifies placement but adds no semantic meaning about the ID's purpose or constraints. The schema already defines it as a required number.

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 'Get issue' and the HTTP endpoint, making it clear the tool retrieves a single issue by ID. It does not explicitly differentiate from list_issue (which lists issues), but the name and endpoint convey the core purpose adequately.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_issue, nor does it state prerequisites or context for use.

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