get_issue_by_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only operation ('get issue details') but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or the return format. The existence of an output schema somewhat compensates, but more detail would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a code block with examples. It is front-loaded with the purpose and provides immediate clarity without extraneous information.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, output schema present), the description is complete enough. It covers the core function and provides examples. It could mention that it returns issue details, but the output schema likely fills that gap.

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?

Although the input schema has no description for the 'url' parameter (0% coverage), the description adds value by providing example URLs that clarify the expected format and supported platforms. This helps the agent understand the parameter beyond the schema's type definition.

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's action: 'Get issue details by URL', and specifies the supported platforms (GitLab and GitHub). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issue_details, which likely use IDs, and list_issues, which lists without a URL.

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 provides explicit context for when to use the tool (when you have a URL) and gives example URLs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear and the examples aid selection.

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