taiga_projects_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get a project by its ID', which is minimal. It does not mention read-only nature explicitly, error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), permissions required, or the structure of the returned object. This is a significant gap given the lack of annotations.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence. Every word is useful and works for a simple get tool. It is appropriately sized and avoids unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple one-parameter get tool, the description is adequate but minimal. There is no output schema, so the agent is left to assume the return value is the full project object. It does not mention any caveats, such as required authentication, or clarify the difference from get_by_slug beyond the ID/slug distinction. It meets the minimum viability but has room for improvement.

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 describes the only parameter 'id' as 'Project ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, essentially restating 'by its ID'. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description does not improve upon it.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'project', and the method 'by its ID'. This distinguishes it from siblings like taiga_projects_list, taiga_projects_get_by_slug, and mutation tools. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you have a project ID. It clearly communicates the primary usage context without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, which is why it doesn't reach a 5. The sibling name 'taiga_projects_get_by_slug' further clarifies when not to use this tool, but the description itself does not mention it.

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