get_issue_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies read-only via 'view' but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or behavior when the ID is not found. The existence of an output schema partially covers return format, but behavioral context is minimal.

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 wasted words. It efficiently 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidelines and parameter details, which are important for effective tool selection among similar siblings.

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 adds no extra meaning for the 'issue_id' parameter beyond the schema's type (integer). For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate, but it does not mention what the parameter represents or how to obtain it.

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 'view', resource 'details of a task', and method 'by ID'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_time_logs_range or list_my_tasks, which deal with multiple tasks or ranges.

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 over siblings such as get_time_logs_range or list_my_tasks. The description only explains the basic function without context for selection.

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