get_issue

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, and the description reinforces it without contradiction. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by describing the slim response default, the full_response toggle, and the fact that missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permissions, and rate limits surface as errors. The 'slim milestone' phrasing is slightly ambiguous and keeps this from a 5.

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 core purpose and response behavior are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is good. However, the later sentences include redundant read-only reinforcement and generic parameter boilerplate that do not earn their place for this specific tool. It reads somewhat like a template rather than a tightly scoped 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the default slim response and the full_response option, which is the key missing information. It also covers error behavior and read-only semantics. The ambiguity around 'slim milestone' versus the actual issue object leaves a small gap in completeness.

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 three parameters well. The description mostly restates what the schema says about project_id and full_response, and it adds generic boilerplate about group_id and pagination that does not directly apply to this tool. No meaningful semantic value is added 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific issue.' It also differentiates from sibling discovery tools by stating it is for a known resource or result, while list/search tools are for discovering multiple resources. This is sufficient for an agent to distinguish get_issue from list_issues and related mutation tools.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when you already know the resource or result, and to choose the corresponding list or search tool when discovery is needed. It does not name specific sibling tools, but the guidance is clear enough to route the agent correctly. A named alternative would have made it fully explicit.

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