taiga_userstory_statuses_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', implying a read operation, but gives no detail on possible errors, permissions, return format, or side effects. This is a minimal, not transparent, disclosure.

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 one short sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, though the grammar 'a userstory statuses' is slightly awkward.

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 the simple one-parameter tool and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but does not explain the return value or any domain context. It could be improved by stating that it returns a single userstory status object, but the current text is adequate for basic invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single 'id' parameter is self-explanatory. The description adds no extra meaning about the ID beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('userstory statuses') with a filter by ID. It distinguishes from the sibling list tool by specifying 'by ID', though it does not elaborate on the shape of the result or define what a userstory status is.

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 given for when to use this tool versus the many sibling status tools (e.g., list, create, update, delete). The 'by ID' wording implies use when an ID is available, but there is no explicit statement of appropriate context or alternatives.

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