bb_get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't state what data is returned, error behavior, rate limits, or whether it modifies anything. 'Detailed information' is vague and doesn't disclose the actual response structure.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how to handle missing issues, or how the output_format parameter affects the response. The tool's simplicity mitigates this somewhat, but the lack of supplementary detail leaves gaps.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, documenting workspace, repo_slug, issue_id, filter, and output_format. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific issue' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (specific issue), clearly distinguishing it from sibling bb_get_issues which lists issues. However, it doesn't explicitly mention Bitbucket issues or contrast with any sibling, leaving slight room for ambiguity.

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?

Usage context is implied: call this when you need details on one issue versus listing issues with bb_get_issues. But there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use', and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites like requiring an issue ID.

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