get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a read tool. Read-only behavior is inferable from 'Get', but nothing is said about miss/not-found behavior, required auth, or permissions. For a trivial lookup this is a tolerable but real gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The verb, resource, and retrieval key are all present immediately.

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 single-parameter read with a complete schema, this is minimally adequate. With no annotations and no output schema, the description does not explain what an issue object contains or what a lookup failure looks like, leaving the agent to infer the result shape.

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 100% and the single parameter (issue_id as a UUID) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond 'by ID', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (issue) plus the retrieval key (by ID), which cleanly separates it from list_issues and search_issues. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it doesn't reach the top of the scale.

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: fetch a single issue when you already have its ID. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling set (list_issues, search_issues, get_summary) offers real alternatives that the description never acknowledges.

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