get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns specific fields but does not disclose potential errors, permissions needed, rate limits, or behavior for missing issues. Provides only basic return information.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second lists return fields. Extremely concise, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary words.

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?

While the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description lacks parameter details and usage context. With 0% schema coverage, it should provide more guidance on parameters and conditions. It misses opportunities to explain owner/repo defaults or error scenarios.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds no information about parameters, such as what 'owner' or 'repo' default to or how they are used. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 retrieves full GitHub issue details, including body content. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'GitHub issue' are specific. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'list_issues' or 'close_issue', the focus on a single issue's details implies a read operation, making it fairly clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over siblings. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. Siblings like 'close_issue' or 'list_issues' are contextually available, but the description offers no usage direction.

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