get_issue

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

With no annotations and no description of behavior, the tool's effects and constraints are entirely undisclosed. The description does not state what is returned, whether it mutates state, or whether any special permissions are needed.

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?

While extremely short, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to convey essential information and is not front-loaded with useful content because there is no useful content.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, 7 parameters, and a two-word description, the tool definition is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly. Critical context such as required parameters, return shape, and relationship to siblings is missing.

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 7 parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 'Get issue' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding any specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling retrieval tools like get_issue_watchers, get_comment, or get_attachment.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which tool is appropriate.

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