get_issue

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds value by explaining a behavioral trait: it reads from the issue itself rather than the search index, giving immediate visibility of recent writes. It also states the exact issue fields returned.

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 first two sentences are tight and front-load the core behavior and the distinguishing read-consistency point. The trailing 'See #358' is a minor extraneous reference that does not meaningfully help an agent decide or call the tool.

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?

For a simple read tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential context: single-issue scope, returned fields, and immediate-write visibility. Its only notable gap is not naming the relevant alternative tool for broader searches.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage and the text only clarifies issue_number through 'by number.' The other parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does little to compensate for the complete absence of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 starts with a concrete verb and object — 'Fetches a single issue by number' — and lists the returned fields: body, labels, assignees, and milestone. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools like search_issues_prs or list_open_ssues_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?

It provides a clear usage cue by contrasting direct reads with the search index: 'so it sees a write immediately.' It does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use it, but the contextual guidance is recognizable.

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