summarize_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Load' strongly implies a read-only retrieval, and the description adds useful detail about the shaped output (excerpts, labels, owner/repo/number). It does not mention limits, errors, or authentication, so it is transparent but not exhaustive.

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 concise sentences, with the core behavior front-loaded and the workflow hint at the end. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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, the description still explains the purpose, the output shape, and the intended next step. It could be more explicit about the exact response format or comment count, but it provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly in the triage workflow.

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 already documents both parameters (repo as owner/name, number as issue number), and schema coverage is 100%. The description only repeats the owner/repo/number concept without adding new syntactical or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action ('Load one issue and its recent comments') and frames the output for triage, listing concrete contents: excerpts, labels, owner/repo/number. It clearly distinguishes this from search_issues (which searches) and draft_comment (which follows it), so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does.

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 gives explicit sequencing guidance with 'Use this before draft_comment,' making the intended workflow clear. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with search_issues, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance, but the intended context is evident.

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