taiga_task_custom_attributes_values_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get'. It does not specify the return format, potential errors, side effects, or that the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, direct sentence that fully conveys the action and object. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, with no wasted words.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention what the response looks like (e.g., a map of attribute IDs to values) or what happens if no custom attributes exist, which would be useful given the lack of an output schema.

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 provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter 'id' with the description 'task ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not enhance parameter understanding. The baseline applies.

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 retrieves custom attribute values for a task, specifying both the resource (task) and the data type (custom attribute values). It distinguishes from sibling tools like taiga_task_custom_attributes_get, which likely retrieves attribute definitions, by explicitly using 'values'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, such as when to prefer it over taiga_task_custom_attributes_get or when not to use it. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations provided.

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