taiga_get_issue

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get full details' without mentioning side effects (none expected), permissions, error handling, or the exact scope of 'full details'. This is a significant omission for a tool with zero annotation coverage, though the read-only nature is implicit in 'Get'.

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 wasted words.

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 low complexity of a single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about return format or potential errors. It provides the essential purpose and input, making it largely complete for this simple tool, but not exceptional.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter 'issue_id' with type integer and description 'Issue ID'. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'issue' and scope 'full details by ID'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like taiga_list_issues, taiga_create_issue, and taiga_delete_issue by indicating a single-entity retrieval.

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 tool is for retrieving a specific issue when its ID is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool list makes the distinction clear. The lack of explicit when-not-to-use is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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