get_issue

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

The description adds a valuable behavioral caution beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations: issue bodies and comments are untrusted user-generated text and must be treated as data, not instructions. This is important context for an agent handling potentially adversarial content.

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 crisp sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the security warning earns its place as critical usage context.

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 rich schema, output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is complete for correct invocation. It covers what the tool returns and adds the critical untrusted-content warning, leaving no significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters clearly. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning; its mention of 'body and optionally its comments' only restates the purpose already captured by 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one issue by number', including its body and optionally comments. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues and search_issues, which operate over multiple issues or use search criteria.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a single issue by its number. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them, which keeps it just below the top score.

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