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 of behavioral disclosure. It says only that a single issue is retrieved, with no mention of read-only behavior, authorization needs, response shape, or what happens if the issue does not exist. For a read operation with zero annotation support, this is a notable gap.

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 short sentence with no filler. It is easy to scan and front-loads the verb and resource, though it could add a brief usage hint without becoming bloated.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single required parameter, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. An agent can infer it returns one issue, but it lacks guidance on when to use it versus list_issues, what the return contains, and any call-specific behavior or failure handling.

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%, so the input schema already documents issue_id ('取得するチケットの ID') and marks it as required. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, but because the schema fully covers it, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'チケット 1 件を取得する' states a clear verb (取得する = get/retrieve) and resource (チケット = ticket/issue), and the singular '1 件' distinguishes it from list_issues. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 singular scope implies this is for fetching one specific ticket rather than listing multiple, which weakly distinguishes it from list_issues. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer get_issue over update_issue or create_issue, and no mention of error conditions or prerequisites.

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