Get Issue Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape ('structured JSON') and the precondition of already having an issue ID, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or freshness of the data. For a low-risk read lookup this is adequate but thin.

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 short, front-loaded parts: the capability statement first, then the routing note. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and nothing is padded.

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?

With both parameters fully documented, an output schema present to describe return values, and explicit routing against the nearest competing tool, an agent has everything required to select and call this tool correctly.

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 100%, with issue_id and workspace_name each documented in the schema (including a workspace naming example). The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond restating the 'already have an issue ID' precondition, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get detailed information about a specific issue') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling workspace_chat by scope. An agent can tell exactly which capability this is without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: prefer workspace_chat for investigative questions (root cause, related resources, next steps) and use this tool only when an issue ID is already in hand and raw JSON is needed. Both the when and the when-not plus the named alternative are present.

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