get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and discloses that the return includes all comments. However, it does not mention error behavior, authorization requirements, or whether any side effects occur. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact, front-loaded with a clear summary, and uses structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every line adds necessary information without fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 simple with a single well-named parameter and an output schema to describe returns. The description covers the core purpose and return content adequately. It lacks elaboration on edge cases or permissions, but given its scope, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema provides zero description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section repeats 'issue_id: The issue ID' but adds no meaning beyond the parameter name itself. There is no discussion of format, source, or validation, providing minimal added value.

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 function: 'Get a single issue with its comments.' This specifies a unique resource and differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_issues' (plural) and 'add_issue_comment'. The action verb 'Get' is direct and unambiguous.

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 context: use this when you need a single issue by ID, as opposed to 'get_issues' for multiple. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear but exclusions are not mentioned.

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