taiga_milestones_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' makes the read-only nature clear, and the addition of 'sprint' as an alternative term for 'milestone' adds context. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any access requirements, leaving some uncertainty for the agent.

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 directly states the core functionality without any filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple get operation and leaves no waste.

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), but the description lacks any mention of return value, required permissions, or relationship to other milestone operations. While the name and verb imply the retrieval of a full milestone object, the absence of an output schema places more burden on the description to explain the response. The coverage is adequate but not complete.

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 already fully describes the single parameter 'id' as a 'Milestone ID' with a number type and required=true. The description's 'by ID' adds no additional semantic value beyond restating the parameter's purpose. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('milestone/sprint') with the method ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_milestones_list (which lists all) and taiga_milestones_create/update/delete, as it targets a single entity by its identifier.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is to be used when the agent possesses a specific milestone ID, which distinguishes it from listing operations. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other milestone-related tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., needing a project context or auth).

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