get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that the operation is read-only ('Fetch') and what data will be returned (labels, assignees, comments). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior for nonexistent issues, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 no filler. Every word adds value by naming the resource and the specific metadata included, making it appropriately sized for a straightforward read tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered elsewhere. The main gaps are the lack of parameter descriptions and the absence of guidance on when to use this tool versus search_issues or get_repository_context. For a simple fetch tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for owner, repo, or issue_number. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, so parameter semantics are essentially undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('full issue metadata'), and explicitly lists the included elements: labels, assignees, and comments. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_issues (searching) and get_pull_request (PR-specific), and from mutation tools like add_labels and post_comment.

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 the tool is for retrieving complete issue details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over search_issues or get_repository_context, nor does it name alternatives. There is no exclusions guidance, so the usage context is clear but not fully specified.

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