Get Issue

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

With no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Fetches' transparently indicates a read-only operation, which is appropriate for this simple get-by-key tool. It does not elaborate on error cases, but given the simplicity, this is sufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It conveys the essential information with maximum efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter), the presence of an output schema, and the clear action stated, the description is fully complete. No additional details are needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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%—the key parameter is well-described ('The issue key, like ABC-123'). The description's 'by its key' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 action ('Fetches'), the resource ('the details of a specific issue'), and the means ('by its key'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_issues (plural) by indicating this tool targets a single, specific 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 implies usage—use this when you have a specific issue key and need its details—but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. The sibling list provides context but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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