get_issue_field

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful context by distinguishing 'global issue field' from queue-local fields and by noting the key form, but says nothing about return shape or error behavior on an unknown key.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, scope and examples packed in; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter read tool whose annotation already covers the safety profile and with no output schema to describe, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. Only the global-vs-local distinction and key examples are covered, which is adequate at this complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's bare 'Field key' by giving concrete example values ('tags', 'priority') that clarify the expected key format and help the agent supply a valid value.

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 (Get) and resource (parameters of a single global issue field) and scopes it by key. The words 'single' and 'global' implicitly separate it from the plural get_issue_fields and the queue-local field siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call this when you already have a field key and need that one field's parameters. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative such as get_issue_fields for listing.

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