taiga_projects_get_by_slug

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It accurately labels the operation as a read ('Get'), but it does not disclose behaviors such as return format, error handling for non-existent slugs, or authentication requirements. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 states exactly what the tool does with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It doesn't explicitly state that a project object is returned or clarify error behavior, but these are largely inferable given the simple scope.

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 has full coverage for the single parameter `slug` with description 'Project slug.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming the slug is the lookup key, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'project' and specifies the distinguishing criterion 'by its slug,' clearly separating it from taiga_projects_get (by ID) and taiga_projects_list. This is precise and self-explanatory.

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 the tool is used when a project slug is available, but it does not explicitly contrast with the alternative taiga_projects_get (by ID) or state when not to use this tool. Usage guidance is therefore merely implied rather than explicit.

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