taiga_get_epic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' clearly indicates a read operation, and 'full details' suggests the complete epic object is returned. However, it does not state that it is read-only, what happens if the epic is not found, or any error conditions. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond what is obvious from the verb.

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 unnecessary words. It communicates the essential action and target in a concise manner, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. No filler or redundant information.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and high schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It states what it does ('Get full details') and how to target the resource (by ID). However, without an output schema, it does not detail the response structure or error handling, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter epic_id, including its type, description, and minimum value. The description's phrase 'by ID' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic meaning beyond confirming that the ID refers to an epic. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 full details of an epic by ID'. The verb 'Get' and resource 'epic' are specific, and 'by ID' indicates the retrieval scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like taiga_list_epics (browse), taiga_create_epic, and taiga_edit_epic, making the purpose 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 description implies when to use this tool: when you need full details of a specific epic by its ID. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name them, but the 'by ID' phrasing sets clear context that this is for single-item retrieval, not listing or modification. Sibling names like taiga_list_epics and taiga_edit_epic provide indirect contrast, but there is no explicit 'use X instead' guidance.

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