taiga_task_custom_attributes_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only list operation and scoping by project, but does not disclose behavior when no project is given, pagination, or authentication requirements. This is moderate transparency for a simple list tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. No unnecessary information is included.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains both the purpose and the filtering mechanism, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It doesn't mention return format, but that is often inferred for list operations.

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 includes the project parameter with description 'Project ID', but the description adds key meaning by stating it acts as a filter. This clarifies that the parameter is optional and scopes the results, going slightly beyond the schema.

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 it lists custom attribute definitions specifically for tasks, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like taiga_epic_custom_attributes_list and taiga_userstory_custom_attributes_list by specifying 'for task'.

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 mentions an optional project filter, implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like values_get or create/update tools, nor does it mention any exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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