Github Get Issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it reads from the canonical issue store rather than the search index, making it strongly consistent and able to see a write immediately. This is useful and does not contradict the annotations.

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 efficient and front-loaded, but 'See #358' is cryptic and provides no actionable value to an AI agent. It is likely an internal reference, making the description slightly less clean than it could be.

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 single-issue GET with a rich output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the target, key behavior, and freshness semantics. It could be improved by explicitly noting the alternative search tool, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only meaningfully clarifies issue_number by saying 'by number'; repo_owner and repo_name are left to their self-evident names. The listed body/labels/assignees/milestone are output fields rather than parameter semantics, so compensation is partial.

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: 'Fetches a single issue by number' and enumerates the included fields (body, labels, assignees, milestone). It also distinguishes itself from search-index-based tools by noting it reads straight from the issue, which differentiates it from siblings like github_search_issues_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?

Provides clear context for when this tool is preferable: when a write must be immediately visible, since it reads directly from the issue rather than the search index. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state exclusions, so it falls short of full explicit when/when-not guidance.

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