taiga_issue_custom_attributes_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that this returns definitions rather than values, but does not disclose behaviors like whether the project filter is optional, pagination, authentication requirements, or return format.

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 front-loads the action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool with one well-documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It states the primary function and the only filter, though it could mention that project is optional or describe what 'definitions' include.

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 100%, so the project parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds the notion of 'Filter by project', which implies optionality and purpose, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'custom attribute definitions for issue', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like taiga_epic_custom_attributes_list and taiga_issue_custom_attributes_values_get.

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?

It implies usage for listing issue custom attribute definitions and notes optional filtering by project, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to use taiga_issue_custom_attributes_values_get for values.

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