get-error-tracking-issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is consistent. However, the description adds no extra behavioral details beyond 'Get', such as output structure, potential errors, or whether it requires authentication. With annotations present, minimal extra context is needed, but none is provided.

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?

Single sentence, 8 words, front-loaded with action. Zero wasted words. Every part is essential and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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 lacks details about return values ('detailed information' is vague). With no output schema, the agent needs hints about the response structure. No mention of expected outcomes or error handling. Incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description for the only parameter ('issueId'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific error tracking issue.' It distinguishes from the sibling 'list-error-tracking-issues' by implying a single item retrieval, but does not explicitly contrast. Overall clear but could be more specific about what 'detailed information' includes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'list-error-tracking-issues'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or cases where this tool is preferred. The description provides no usage context.

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