taiga_issue_statuses_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not mention the response format, error handling, or that it returns a single status object. The description is minimal and lacks detail beyond the basic operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that is appropriately concise. However, the grammatical error 'a issue statuses' slightly harms clarity and professionalism, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description provides the minimum viable context: what it does and on what entity. It does not explain what an issue status is or what the return value looks like, but for a simple CRUD get operation, this is adequate yet not comprehensive.

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 describes the single parameter 'id' with 'ID', achieving 100% coverage. The tool description repeats 'by ID' without adding further semantics about the ID's format, scope, or relationship to issue statuses. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('issue statuses') with a retrieval criterion ('by ID'). While grammatically awkward ('a issue statuses'), it conveys the core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like taiga_issue_statuses_list, but the name and 'by ID' imply a single-record fetch.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as taiga_issue_statuses_list or taiga_issue_statuses_get_by_ref. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Get', and there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative references.

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