taiga_issues_voters

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. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return format, pagination, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral traits. It adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, clearly worded sentence that immediately states the function. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 parameter, no output schema), and 'List voters of an issue' conveys the core action. However, it lacks any detail about the return value (e.g., what voter information is included) and does not provide usage context. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Issue ID'. The description's phrase 'of an issue' aligns with the schema but does not add any new semantics. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 voters of an issue' uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource (voters of an issue). It distinguishes itself from similar voter tools for epics, user stories, and tasks by explicitly naming 'issue' as the target resource.

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 like taiga_epics_voters or taiga_tasks_voters. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios. The only implied usage is that it is for issues, based on the name.

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