taiga_severities_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists severities and can filter by project, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, if pagination applies, or any authentication requirements. For a simple list tool this is a notable gap.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that immediately state the action and the optional filter. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no unnecessary words or filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action and the filter, but it does not mention the return value or any behavioral notes. For an agent, this may be enough to call the tool, but it lacks the context to fully understand the output or usage boundaries.

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 already describes the sole parameter 'project' as 'Project ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds the phrase 'Filter by project,' which clarifies the parameter's role as an optional filter, providing some additional meaning beyond the raw schema. However, this is a minimal addition, so the score stays at 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 clearly states the tool lists severities, with a specific verb and resource. It adds the filter-by-project capability, which gives scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling list tools (e.g., taiga_priorities_list), though the resource name itself differentiates it.

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 that this is for listing all severities as opposed to fetching a single severity (taiga_severities_get) or that similar list tools exist for other resources (e.g., priorities, issue types). The usage context is essentially implied by the tool name.

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