taiga_resolver_userstory

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the core action ('resolve') and the output ('ID'), which implies a read-only lookup, but it does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior. The description adds some value but leaves gaps in transparency.

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 sentence of nine words, directly front-loaded with the verb 'Resolve.' It contains zero redundancy and efficiently conveys the entire purpose.

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 resolver tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value ('to its ID'). It does not elaborate on error cases or prerequisites, but the combination of description and schema covers the essential information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 documents both parameters with descriptions ('Project slug' and 'User story ref number'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add meaningful semantic detail about the parameters beyond what is in the schema; it merely restates that the user story ref is resolved. Baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'Resolve a user story ref to its ID.' It specifies a specific verb ('resolve'), a resource ('user story ref'), and the expected outcome ('to its ID'). This distinguishes it from other resolver tools (e.g., taiga_resolver_task, taiga_resolver_epic) by explicitly naming the resource type.

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 such as taiga_userstories_get_by_ref, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is implied by the function's name and purpose, but no explicit context is given.

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