taiga_userstory_custom_attributes_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and identifies the object returned, but it does not disclose response format, authorization requirements, or error behavior. For a simple get-by-id, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it repeats 'userstory' and 'get' from the tool name. The only genuinely new information is 'definition,' making it slightly redundant. Still, it is efficiently short.

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 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), which lowers the burden. The description gives the essential purpose but leaves the return structure and any behavioral nuance to inference. It is complete enough for a basic fetch but lacks explanatory detail that would help an agent anticipate the response.

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 already provides a description for the single 'id' parameter ('Custom attribute ID'), so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, and the wording 'for userstory' could be misread as implying the id belongs to the userstory rather than the attribute, though schema clarifies it.

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 gets a custom attribute definition for a userstory, using the specific verb 'Get' and naming the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like those for epics/tasks/issues and from values_get, though it doesn't elaborate on what 'definition' entails.

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 the list tool or values_get. The description simply states the action without mentioning prerequisites, selection criteria, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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