github_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. The only behavioral detail is the allowlist restriction. It does not disclose error handling, return format, rate limits, or preconditions beyond the allowlist.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence about the allowlist is useful but adds a slight structural separation. Overall it is concise without wordiness.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is too thin for a tool with zero parameter descriptions and no behavioral disclosure. The allowlist constraint is helpful, but the lack of parameter semantics and error handling leaves significant gaps, especially given the low schema coverage.

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% and the description adds no explanation for repo_slug or issue_number. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify the expected format or how to obtain the issue number, leaving the agent without necessary context.

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 'Get issue details from GitHub' clearly specifies the action (get), resource (issue details), and platform (GitHub). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_find_prs_for_issue, which focuses on pull requests, and github_open_pr, which creates PRs.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Mentioning that the repository must be in the allowlist is a constraint, not a usage guideline. No alternatives or exclusions are cited.

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