get_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes well beyond by explaining the default markdown render, the normalized JSON structure, raw YT passthrough with fields, bot comment hiding, and truncation behavior—all of which are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to predict outcomes.

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?

Although long, the description is tightly organized: a one-sentence purpose, then format explanation, then fields override behavior, then an Args list. Every sentence adds useful information, and the most critical details are front-loaded. No wasted words or repetition.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: output formats, field normalization, override behavior, comment handling, truncation, and even consistency with other tools. With an output schema present, it appropriately avoids detailing return values and instead focuses on behavioral nuances.

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%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. The Args section thoroughly explains each of the 7 parameters, including defaults, valid values (format='report'/'json'), and nuanced interactions (fields with format, comment_chars truncation). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with 'Get full details of a YouTrack issue', using a specific verb and resource. It then clearly distinguishes the two output formats (markdown vs normalized JSON) and explicitly states the JSON shape matches what pulse and handoffs use, making it easy to differentiate from sibling list/search tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the default report format versus JSON, and explains when 'fields' should be used for power callers needing specific YT response fields. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other use cases, but the usage context is well implied.

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