get_issue

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description carries a lower burden, but it adds nothing behavioral on top: no note on the optional fields selection, error behavior for a missing/invalid key, or any auth requirement. The only added context is the key format example.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the example is the one piece of extra information that earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a tool with an undocumented optional 'fields' parameter and many sibling read tools, the description is too thin: no field-selection guidance and no differentiation from search_issues.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely covers issue_id via the TEST-123 key example, but the 'fields' parameter — which controls which issue fields are returned — is completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Получить задачу Яндекс Трекера') and constrains retrieval to a key lookup with a concrete example (TEST-123). This distinguishes it from search_issues, but it never names that sibling or otherwise positions itself among the many get_* tools.

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 phrase 'по ключу' plus the TEST-123 example implies usage (use when you already know the issue key), which is useful routing information. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs search_issues or when-not guidance, and nothing about required permissions.

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