taiga_epics_voters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the tool's name ('List voters of an epic') without adding any behavioral context such as authentication requirements, response shape (e.g., list of user objects), pagination, or whether it is a read-only operation (though 'list' implies read). It adds nothing beyond the name itself.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb and target. Every word is necessary, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 list operation with one fully documented parameter, the description is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema, so the agent does not know the return format (e.g., array of user objects). It also lacks any contextual notes about when the list might be empty or how voting works, making it slightly below complete for a seamless agent interaction.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with a description ('Epic ID') for the only required parameter 'id'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('List') and the target resource ('voters of an epic'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with watchers, upvotes, or voters of other entities (e.g., taiga_userstories_voters, taiga_epics_watchers).

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 implies usage: call this tool when you need to see who voted for a specific epic. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., taiga_epics_upvote/downvote for modifying votes, or taiga_epics_watchers for watchers). It is adequate but minimal.

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