get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' signals a read-only retrieval and is not misleading, but it does not mention response format, error behavior, permission needs, or what 'details' includes. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks depth.

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 a single, compact sentence with the action and resource front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 low-complexity getter, this is near-minimum viable. It identifies the target resource but does not describe what the returned details contain or that issue_iid and project_id are effectively required for a specific lookup, especially since the schema marks 0 required parameters.

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 coverage is 100%: both issue_iid and project_id have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('details of a specific issue in a GitLab project'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_issues, which operate on multiple issues, and get_issue_link, which targets a different relationship.

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 a single-issue lookup through the word 'specific', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_issues, create_issue, or get_issue_link. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided; the guidance is implicit only.

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