Get Issue Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: notes are paginated up to maxNotes, related merge requests are those mentioning or closing the issue, and linked issues of types relates_to/blocks/is_blocked_by are included. This adds value beyond annotations, though the exact number of API calls or performance implications are not disclosed.

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: first explains what the tool does, second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded with the bundled resources. 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?

The description explains what the tool returns (issue body, notes, related MRs, linked issues) but does not specify the exact structure of the response (e.g., whether these are separate keys or combined). Given no output schema, a bit more detail on the return format would improve completeness, but the bundling concept is clear.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that maxNotes is a cap but does not add new semantics beyond the schema descriptions. No parameters are left undocumented, but the description does not elaborate on usage of 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?

The description clearly states it bundles issue body, notes, related merge requests, and linked issues into a single call. It specifies the verb 'bundle' and the resource 'issue context', and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternative tools (get_issues, get_notes, search_merge_requests).

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 explicitly says 'Use this instead of fanning out across get_issues + get_notes + search_merge_requests when investigating an issue.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and alternative tools.

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