github_get_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the authentication requirement ('requires GITHUB_TOKEN') and reiterates 'read-only GitHub API request', which reinforces the read-only nature but doesn't contradict annotations. The token requirement is useful context beyond what annotations provide.

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 exactly two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the concrete read action and fields, the second gives usage guidance and exclusions. Every word earns its place, and the most important operational detail (what it reads) is immediately clear.

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 the tool's simple nature, the description is largely complete: it specifies the data returned, the auth requirement, and the usage context. An output schema is not present, but the description enumerates the fields returned (title, body, labels, state, URL), which gives the agent a good idea of the response shape. It doesn't mention any rate limits or error handling, but those are likely covered by the annotations and general platform knowledge. The only minor gap is no explicit statement about what happens if the issue doesn't exist, but that is typical and not required for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% – both parameters have descriptive text in the schema (repository pattern and allowed repos, issueNumber positive integer). The description doesn't add any parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already explains. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no extra value.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one GitHub issue') and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, body, labels, state, URL). It explicitly says 'do not use it for pull requests', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool github_get_pull_request. This provides clear, unambiguous purpose and differentiates it from the tool family.

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 an explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this to establish source requirements before triage') and a when-not-to-use exclusion ('do not use it for pull requests'). This is direct and leaves no ambiguity about selecting this tool over alternatives. Though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly, the exclusion is sufficient to route the agent correctly.

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