get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. '조회합니다' communicates a read-only retrieval operation, and 'REST API v3' adds an implementation detail. But it does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, rate limits, or how expand/fields affect the response; this is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 two short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. The 'REST API v3' clause is mildly useful but not strictly actionable; it does not bloat the definition.

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 five-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the core retrieval behavior but omits response-shape guidance, clearer expand/fields semantics, failure behavior, and usage routing. It is workable for a basic call by ID or key, but it has clear gaps for robust invocation.

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?

All five parameters already have descriptions in the schema, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to restate them. The tool description only repeats the 'ID or key' lookup concept and adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a clear verb — '조회합니다' (retrieves) — and a specific resource ('issue detail information') by ID or key. This distinguishes it from siblings like jql_search, which searches for issues rather than fetching a known one, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 lookup condition 'ID 또는 키로' implies that the tool should be used when the agent already knows the issue identifier. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer siblings such as jql_search or get_transitions, so routing is left to inference.

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