taiga_get_epic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the response includes 'description and linked user stories', which is valuable return-content context, but it does not mention read-only safety, permission requirements, not-found behavior, or error handling.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and the key return content. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a useful hint about returned details. However, it omits parameter semantics, error behavior, and authentication requirements, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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 0%, so the single parameter epic_id has no structured documentation. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving its meaning to be inferred solely from the name; it does not compensate for the coverage gap with format or example details.

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 resource ('full epic details'), making it clear this retrieves a single epic rather than listing epics. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like taiga_list_epics, but the distinction is inferable from 'full epic details'.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Get' and the mention of 'full epic details', suggesting it is for retrieving one epic when you already know its ID. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus taiga_list_epics or how to obtain the epic_id.

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