Get issue context

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only indicates a read operation ('Get'). It omits details like authentication requirements, error handling for invalid keys, or any side effects, which is insufficient for a tool with no other behavioral documentation.

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, 14-word sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, e.g., mentioning the optional parameters briefly.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how contextLines affects output, what includeRule does, or how branch/pullRequest filter results. The return format is also unmentioned.

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 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value by hinting at context lines ('source lines around the affected range'), but does not explain the roles of branch, pullRequest, or includeRule, leaving them underspecified.

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 tool retrieves a single SonarQube issue with surrounding source lines, using specific verb 'Get' and resource 'one SonarQube issue'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like search_sonar_issues (multiple issues) or get_sonar_sources (raw source without issue context).

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 implies usage for retrieving a specific issue with context lines but does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool's purpose.

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