Github Get Issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering safety. The description adds a useful behavioral trait: it reads directly from the issue rather than the search index, ensuring immediate consistency after a write. This goes beyond what annotations provide and is relevant for agents choosing between direct reads and search.

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 concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence and the consistency behavior in the second. The 'See #358' reference is slightly extraneous, and the 'Workflow and conventions' line is brief but not clutter. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 fetch, the description covers the key aspects: what data is returned, the direct-read consistency, and a pointer to a skill for workflow. An output schema exists, so return details are covered. It does not address auth or edge cases, but these are less critical given the simplicity and existing annotations.

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 carries full responsibility for parameter semantics. It only clarifies issue_number via 'by number', but provides no detail on repo_owner or repo_name. While these names are self-explanatory, the description does not explicitly map them to the schema, and per the rule it must compensate for low coverage. It does not fully do so.

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 clearly states the verb 'fetches' and the resource 'a single issue by number', listing the returned fields (body, labels, assignees, milestone). It also differentiates from search-based access by noting it reads directly from the issue, distinguishing it from sibling tools 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?

The description implies a usage scenario by stating it reads straight from the issue rather than the search index, so it sees a write immediately. This hints at when to prefer this over search, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The reference to github_get_skill('issue-management') suggests further guidance but is not explicit about tool selection.

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