taiga_get_user_story

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and 'Get' plus the enumerated fields do establish a read-only retrieval returning description, tasks, and comments. It says nothing about behavior for a nonexistent or inaccessible story, nor about permissions or whether comments/tasks are truncated.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and returned payload front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, but nothing needs trimming.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives a usable sense of the return payload (description, tasks, comments) but omits identifier semantics and failure behavior. It is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent calling it cold.

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 description must compensate, but it never mentions story_id at all — not whether it is the numeric Taiga story ID, a ref, or a slug. The single parameter is left entirely to the schema's bare 'integer' type.

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 story details') and enumerates what comes back (description, tasks, comments), which distinguishes it from the list/form siblings. It does not explicitly name taiga_list_user_stories as the alternative, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this versus taiga_list_user_stories or taiga_resolve_ref, and no prerequisite such as how to obtain a valid story_id. The agent must infer that this is the single-item fetch used after a listing call.

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