Get an issue

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false) already convey the safe, read-only nature. The description adds the authorization class but no additional behavioral insights like response size or error scenarios. The annotations carry the burden, and the description adds minimal extra value.

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 very concise (two lines) but the first line repeats the title. The second line provides useful technical details. Every sentence is short, but the first could be removed or merged for better efficiency.

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?

Given the simplicity (1 param, read-only with good annotations), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks information about the output (response structure) and potential error states. An output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent to guess the return format.

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% and the description does not explain the single required parameter 'id'. The parameter's purpose is implied by the tool name but never explicitly stated. For a 1-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description should clarify the parameter's meaning and format.

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 'Get an issue' and includes the API endpoint, indicating it retrieves a single issue by ID. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like pc_get_issues, which lists issues. The distinction is implied by the name and parameter structure.

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 versus alternatives such as pc_get_issues for listing or pc_patch_issues_by_id for updating. The description only offers technical implementation details (API path, auth class) without usage context.

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