taiga_get_issue

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it discloses the return content (description plus comments) and the ID semantics that govern correct invocation. It does not mention permissions, or how comments are ordered/truncated, which leaves a small gap for a read tool of this shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return contract, then the sibling contrast, then the ID caveat. No restatement of the name and no filler.

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, the description adequately explains what comes back, and the single-parameter surface is fully covered. Minor omission: nothing about ordering, size, or error behavior when the ID does not exist.

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 0% and the single parameter is bare ('issue_id': integer), so the description must compensate — and it does, specifying that the value is the internal id (not a # ref) and routing users to taiga_resolve_ref for conversion. That is precisely the semantic the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full issue details') and, unusually, spells out the returned payload ('description AND comments'). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling taiga_list_issues, so the agent can differentiate without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule versus taiga_list_issues ('returns only subject/status/assignee, so this is the only way to read what an issue actually says') and a prerequisite step ('use taiga_resolve_ref to convert a # ref first'). That covers both alternative selection and preconditions.

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