taiga_issues_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavior disclosure, but it only states 'List issues with optional filters.' It does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether pagination or ordering is applied, any permission requirements, or potential side effects. The behavior is mostly implicit for a list operation, but critical details are missing.

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 with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, its terseness leaves out essential information, though that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness flaw. It earns a high score for being appropriately sized and efficient.

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 has 20 parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description offers only 'List issues with optional filters,' which is completely inadequate for an agent to understand filtering semantics, return format, pagination, or how parameters interact. This is a severe completeness gap.

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 description coverage is only 20%, with 4 of 20 parameters having descriptions (tags, type, project, order_by). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'optional filters,' leaving the other 16 parameters undocumented. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage or explain parameter relationships.

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 'List issues with optional filters' clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (issues). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like taiga_tasks_list and taiga_userstories_list by explicitly targeting issues. The mention of optional filters hints at the flexible query capability.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools or how to combine filters. The description only says 'optional filters' without explaining scenarios, required parameters, or exclusions. Users must infer from the name that this is for issues, but no contextual guidance is provided.

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