taiga_get_milestone

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, and 'including its user stories' adds return content context. However, it does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior, potential errors, or permission requirements.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description communicates the core operation and one key aspect of the response (user stories). However, 'details' is vague and does not enumerate the fields returned, leaving the response format underspecified for an agent.

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 covers the single parameter milestone_id with a clear description ('Sprint ID'), and the description simply reinforces that retrieval is by ID. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new semantic value beyond a restatement.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('sprint' by ID), clearly distinguishing it from list/create siblings. The additional mention of 'including its user stories' adds concrete scope and further clarifies the purpose.

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 this tool is for retrieving a single sprint when its ID is known, but it does not explicitly compare with taiga_list_milestones for enumerating sprints or taiga_create_milestone for creating them. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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