get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the three-part return (issue record, remediation markdown, affected-objects page), notes remediation is conditional ('when available'), and documents pagination mechanics including the page_size cap of 100 and cursor carry-forward. It never says this is a pure read operation, but 'Get' plus the read-shaped payload makes that clear enough.

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?

Four sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by return shape, pagination behavior, and the sibling redirect. Each sentence adds distinct information; only the pagination sentence is slightly dense but it is justified by the missing schema docs.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description enumerates the returned parts and the pagination contract, which is the critical missing structured information. What remains thin is failure/empty behavior (e.g. an issue with no rule guidance, or a invalid issue_id), but that is a minor gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains page_size (capped at 100) and cursor (carries forward to the next page), covering two of three params; issue_id is left implicit, though its meaning is unambiguous from context. Adequate but not complete compensation for a 0%-coverage schema.

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 full detail for one issue') and immediately scopes the payload ('plus rule-level remediation guidance'), which separates it from list_issues and get_remediation_guidance. It also names get_finding_detail as the tool for a narrower concern, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use get_finding_detail for the code location of a specific occurrence,' and implies the singular-vs-list split against list_issues. It stops short of stating when this tool should be preferred over the standalone get_remediation_guidance sibling, which is the one ambiguous boundary left.

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