Github Read Issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'redacted', hinting at data security, but does not elaborate on auth, rate limits, or side effects. Value beyond annotations is moderate.

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?

A single 9-word sentence with no filler. Efficient but could include parameter hints without becoming verbose. Still, it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 5 parameters and low schema coverage, the description omits essential configuration details (e.g., comments, limits). Output schema exists but return values are not described. The tool is simple but parameter guidance is insufficient.

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 only 20% (only repo_alias described). The tool description mentions only 'repo alias' and 'issue number', leaving comments, max_comments, max_body_chars unexplained. Description fails to compensate for low 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 clearly states the verb 'Read', the resource 'one redacted GitHub issue', and the distinguishing qualifier 'by configured repo alias and issue number'. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like redctx_github_list_issues and redctx_github_search_issues.

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 when to use (specific issue by alias and number) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list or search tools. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite context is provided.

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