get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries burden. It discloses default session behavior and verbosity levels, but does not mention read-only nature, error handling, or authentication needs. Adds some context but could be more comprehensive.

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 sentences plus a brief note on verbosity. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Output schema exists, so full return details are not needed. However, description does not summarize what is returned (e.g., full issue details). With 3 parameters and sibling context, description is adequate but misses mentioning response format or available fields.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that issue_id is internal ID (not ref), lists verbosity options, and notes session default. This adds moderate value beyond the schema structure, but lacks detailed meaning for each parameter.

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 gets detailed issue information by internal ID, specifically distinguishing it from the reference number used in Taiga UI. The verb 'gets' and resource 'issue' are explicit, and it differentiates from sibling get_issue_by_ref.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to use get_issue_by_ref when having the ref number instead, and mentions verbosity options. No explicit when-not-to-use or context of when this is the best choice, but the alternative is named.

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