get_incident_by_issue_number

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only restates the action. It does not mention side effects, error behavior, permissions, or return format. For a read operation, it doesn't confirm read-only status or handle edge cases, so it provides minimal behavioral insight.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. No filler or redundant explanation, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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 one-parameter lookup, the description covers the essential purpose. It could mention what happens on not-found or the return structure, but given the simplicity, it is largely adequate. No output schema or annotations increase the burden slightly, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

The description explains that issue number is a unique identifier and gives an example (1234), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema property name 'issue_nbr'. However, it does not provide additional detail such as format constraints or behavior when the number is invalid.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving incident details using the issue number as identifier. The verb 'get' plus resource 'incident details' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_incident_scope_by_issue_number or open_incident_by_id.

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 usage when the user has an issue number and wants full incident details, but it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like get_incident_scope_by_issue_number or search_incidents. However, the context is reasonably clear, and mentioning the issue number as a unique identifier helps signal when this tool is appropriate.

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