taiga_list_user_stories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation only through the verb 'List' and says nothing about pagination, default ordering, result limits, or whether unfiltered calls return the entire backlog — meaningful gaps for a list endpoint on a large project.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded and filters second. Every clause earns its place with 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?

For a five-parameter list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves too much unsaid: the required project_id scope, pagination behavior, and what a returned user story contains are all absent.

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; it does explain what four of the five parameters mean, including that assigned_to takes a username rather than a numeric ID. However, the required project_id is never mentioned and no parameter formats, defaults, or accepted status values (enum-free string) are given.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List user stories') and enumerates the available filters, so its function is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as taiga_search or taiga_get_user_story, which an agent could plausibly confuse for retrieval.

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?

Naming the four filters implies the situations the tool serves (filtering a project's backlog by state/sprint/epic/assignee), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of taiga_search as the alternative for free-text lookup, and no note that project_id is mandatory.

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