get_external_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Fetches' and 'Returns current issue details' indicate a read-only operation, and the tie to create_external_issue adds context. However, it doesn't disclose error scenarios, provider-specific read behaviors (e.g., Jira target), or authentication requirements beyond what the schema offers.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource. The second sentence adds functional value by clarifying the return and the intended use case. No 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?

For a read tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, applicable providers, and the relationship to create_external_issue. The return structure is only vaguely described as 'current issue details including status,' which is a minor gap but tolerable given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with all four parameters described in the schema. The description reinforces that issueIds can be IDs or keys, but it doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches previously created external issues by ID or key and returns current details including status. The verb 'fetches' plus the specific resource (external issues from multiple providers) makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like create_external_issue.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use this to check whether issues filed via create_external_issue are still open or have been resolved.' This gives clear when-to-use context, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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