taiga_projects_issues_stats

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 simply states 'Get project issues stats' without revealing what statistics are included (e.g., counts by status, severity), whether it is read-only, or what the response format is. The description is minimal and does not add meaningful behavioral context.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a simple one-parameter tool, though it could have used the space to include more useful details about the stats without becoming verbose.

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?

This tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the tool returns. It only states the purpose (getting project issues stats) but does not specify the content of those stats, any limitations, or the nature of the response. For a stats tool, this is a significant 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter ('id' -> 'Project ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description 'Get project issues stats' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, such as how the id relates to the stats or any special formatting.

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 'Get project issues stats.' uses a clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('project issues stats'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_projects_stats (general project stats) and taiga_projects_member_stats (member-specific stats). It is unambiguous and directly states what the tool does.

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. It does not mention explicit use cases, exclusions, or alternatives such as taiga_projects_stats or taiga_issues_list. The only implied usage comes from the tool name itself, not from the description.

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