issue_read

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry disclosure. It only says 'Read,' implying a safe operation, but doesn't mention return format, potential 404s, authentication requirements, or that it works for both issues and PRs. This is minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It communicates the core action efficiently, though it could be more informative without much extra length.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only three parameters, but the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what the response contains, how issue_number works for both issues and PRs, or any caveats. Given no output schema or annotations, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the parameters (owner, repo, issue_number). The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra meaning or context, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema field names.

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 tool reads an issue or pull request in a repository. This distinguishes it from listing tools and creation tools, though it doesn't differentiate from 'get_pull_request' or clarify that 'issue_number' applies to both, which keeps it from being a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_pull_request' or 'list_issues'. The description gives no context about selecting this tool versus siblings.

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