taiga_task_statuses_get

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 'get', which implies a read operation but does not mention return format, error behavior, authentication, permissions, or any side effects. For a simple read tool this is minimal, but it fails to add value beyond the name itself.

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 short sentence, which is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-ID tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the wording is slightly awkward ('a task statuses') and it lacks any additional clarifying structure, reducing slightly from a perfect score.

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 (one fully described parameter, no output schema). The description adequately states the operation's essence for selection and invocation. It does not cover error responses or permissions, but given the low complexity and complete schema, the description is reasonably complete. It falls short of outlining return details, but those are not strictly required without 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 fully documents the 'id' parameter with description 'ID' (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional parameter context; 'by ID' simply restates the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra nuance.

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 'Get a task statuses by ID' clearly states a singular resource (task status) and a specific verb (get). It distinguishes from list/create/update/delete siblings by indicating retrieval by ID, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get tools like taiga_tasks_get. The slight grammatical error ('a task statuses') does not obscure meaning.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as taiga_task_statuses_list or other entity-specific get tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The only implied context is that an ID is needed, which is already evident from the schema.

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