taiga_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get details' without mentioning potential errors, permissions, return format, or behavior when both parameters are supplied. This is minimal beyond the tool's name and lacks transparency about side effects or preconditions.

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?

A single, focused sentence with no redundant information. Every word adds value: 'Get details', 'project', 'by ID or slug'.

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 getter, the description is adequate, but it lacks details about the return object, error handling, or whether one parameter is preferred over the other. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent has to guess about the response structure and edge cases.

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 already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both slug and project_id. The description adds no new parameter information, only restating 'by ID or slug' which mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantics.

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 retrieves details of a project using either an ID or slug. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_list_projects (list all) and taiga_create_project.

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 usage for fetching a single project by identifier, but does not explicitly contrast with taiga_list_projects or mention when alternatives might be preferred. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided beyond the inherent purpose.

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