get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the content is 'untrimmed' and includes 'every comment,' which hints at completeness and potential payload size. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or lack of side effects. The phrase 'when a thread needs to be read' implies read-only, but this is not a direct disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core behavior (full untrimmed issue text), and the second provides actionable usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the return content, the usage context, and the schema fully documents the parameters. Minor gaps are the lack of explicit error conditions and exact output structure, but these are unlikely to mislead an agent deciding to call this tool.

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 100% — both `repo` and `number` are already described in the input schema with clear formats ('owner/name' and 'Issue number'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it correctly sits at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 exactly what the tool returns: 'The full text of one issue: body and every comment, untrimmed.' This clearly identifies the resource and scope, and distinguishes it from siblings like `triage` and `search_issues`, which are presumably summary/list tools. An agent can tell this tool apart without opening the schema.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Use after `triage` or `search_issues` when a thread needs to be read or summarised.' This gives a clear workflow context and names the alternatives, satisfying the when/when-not guidance with no inference needed.

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