taiga_users_liked

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses no behavioral details beyond the basic action, such as pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or response format. There is no contradiction, but also no additional 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 concise sentence: 'List projects liked by a user.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return value (list of liked projects) and the primary input (user ID). While it lacks alternative usage guidance or edge-case behavior, its simplicity makes this acceptable, and it is complete enough for basic invocations.

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 documents the single parameter 'id' as 'User ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter information, so it does not exceed the schema baseline. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 verb 'List' and the specific resource 'projects liked by a user'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_users_voted (items voted) and taiga_users_watched (watched items). The resource and action are unambiguous.

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 use case is implied: when you need to list projects a given user has liked. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives like taiga_users_voted or taiga_users_watched, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended scenario is reasonably clear from the description alone.

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