taiga_issues_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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it does not mention any potential error conditions, authentication requirements, or whether the full issue object is returned. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 issue by ID') with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID operation and is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete for selecting the tool. However, it lacks any indication of when to use this tool over the similarly name taiga_issues_get_by_ref, which prevents a perfect completeness score.

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 the only parameter (id) with a clear description 'Issue ID', meeting the high schema_description_coverage criterion. The description adds no new semantic information about the parameter beyond what is already in 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 'Get an issue by ID' clearly states a specific verb (Get) and resource (issue) with an identifier, distinguishing it from siblings like taiga_issues_list and taiga_issues_get_by_ref by specifying the retrieval method.

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. It does not mention that taiga_issues_get_by_ref should be used when a numeric ref is available, nor does it state that taiga_issues_list is for listing. The usage context is implied only by the tool name and ID parameter.

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