taiga_resolver_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (though likely read-only), error behavior, return format (e.g., whether the ID is an integer or string), or whether the task must exist. The description does not clarify if this is a pure lookup or if it performs any additional operations.

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 that is front-loaded with the action. It contains no unnecessary words. While 'Resolve a task ref to its ID' is terse, it is appropriately compact for a tool with only two parameters.

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 resolver tool with no output schema, the description does not explain what the return value looks like (e.g., just the ID, or an object containing the ID). It also does not clarify how this differs from taiga_tasks_get_by_ref or when to use this route. The minimal context leaves the agent uncertain about the output and the tool's role in a workflow.

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?

Schema coverage for parameters is 100%, with 'task' described as 'Task ref number' and 'project' as 'Project slug'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond translating 'task' to 'task ref' and 'project' to 'project slug', which is already in the schema. It does not clarify the relationship between the two parameters or provide format details, so it meets the baseline but adds little value.

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 'Resolve a task ref to its ID' clearly identifies the tool's function: converting a task reference number into an internal ID. The verb 'resolve' and the specific transformation (ref to ID) are precise. However, it does not distinguish between this and the sibling tool taiga_tasks_get_by_ref, which also returns task data for a ref, making the unique value less clear.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this resolver versus taiga_tasks_get_by_ref or other sibling resolvers like taiga_resolver_userstory. It lacks any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool should be preferred.

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