taiga_issue_custom_attributes_values_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's purpose without mentioning read-only status, response format, error behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an MCP tool, though the get operation is inherently low-risk.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object, with zero redundancy and no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter with one parameter.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter), but with no output schema and no description of the return value, the agent is left guessing about what the response contains. The description is adequate for basic usage but misses important context like value structure and potential errors.

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 parameter descriptions (id is described as 'issue ID'), so the description adds no additional parameter value. Baseline 3 applies since schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't conflict or add nuance.

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 specifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('custom attribute values'), and the scope ('specific issue'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools that handle custom attributes for epics, user stories, or tasks, and from tools that manage custom attribute definitions rather than values.

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?

Usage context is implied by the resource and tool name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools, such as taiga_issue_custom_attributes_get (for definitions) or taiga_issue_custom_attributes_values_update (for updates). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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