get_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves detailed information and presents it in an '易讀格式' (readable format), but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence adds value: the purpose, parameter explanations, and return format. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, errors) and doesn't fully explain the return value beyond '易讀格式'. Without annotations or output schema, more context on the response structure would be helpful.

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 adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond the schema. It explains 'issue_id' as '議題 ID' (issue ID) and 'include_details' as controlling whether to include '描述、備註、附件等' (description, notes, attachments, etc.). With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by clarifying what each parameter does, though it doesn't specify format or constraints.

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's purpose: '取得指定的 Redmine 議題詳細資訊' (Get specified Redmine issue details). It specifies the verb '取得' (get) and resource 'Redmine 議題' (Redmine issue), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_my_issues' or 'list_project_issues' which also retrieve issues. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_issue' over 'get_my_issues', 'list_project_issues', or 'search_issues', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.

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