taiga_userstories_get_by_ref

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether it is read-only, what happens if not found, or any other behavioral traits. It simply restates the function.

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 8-word sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 this is a simple two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately states the purpose and required inputs. It does not explain return format, but that is not critical for a getter.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions ('User story ref number' and 'Project ID'), and both are required. The tool description's 'by ref and project' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 verb 'Get', the resource 'user story', and the identifying parameters 'by ref and project'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like taiga_userstories_get (presumably by ID) through the explicit 'by ref' qualifier.

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 implies the use case: retrieving a user story when you have both its ref and project ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'by ref and project' context gives clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate.

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