get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but 'Get' clearly signals a read-only, non-destructive lookup. It adds that the response is 'comprehensive details', partially compensating for the absent output schema, yet says nothing about permissions, missing-issue errors, or pagination/large-field 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?

A single tight sentence with the verb, resource, and identifying key front-loaded, and zero filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, and 'comprehensive details' hints at return breadth. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could say more about the returned payload or failure modes for a missing/unreadable IID.

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%, so both params are already documented by the schema, including the IID-vs-global-id distinction. The description only restates the IID as '#<iid>' and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, 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') and pins the lookup key to the project-scoped IID, which implicitly separates it from list_issues/create_issue/update_issue. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or the scope boundary, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Usage is only implied: fetch one issue when you already know its IID, rather than enumerating with list_issues. Adequate but left to inference.

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