taiga_epics_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a safe read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, nor does it mention error behavior or return characteristics. It is minimally adequate but lacks explicit transparency about permissions, idempotency, or failure modes.

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 description is a single, concise sentence: 'Get an epic by ID.' It is front-loaded, contains zero waste, and every word earns its place. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what resource is retrieved and how it is identified. However, it does not mention the response structure or any edge-case behavior, though for a standard fetch operation this is generally implied. The absence of an output schema means a little more detail could be justified, but given the tool's simplicity, the current description is adequate.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a description 'Epic ID'. The description's mention of 'by ID' aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic value beyond what is already in the input schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'epic', and specifies the lookup method 'by ID'. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool taiga_epics_get_by_ref, which also fetches an epic but by a different identifier. The name and param make the distinction clear, but the description itself does not mention the alternative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like taiga_epics_get_by_ref or taiga_epics_list. It lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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