taiga_get_userstory

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry the burden. 'Get full details' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose potential error conditions, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is immediately front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it highly scannable.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete for a get-by-ID operation. It clearly states what is returned (full details) and the identifier needed. However, it omits any mention of return format or potential edge cases, which is minor for this type of tool.

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 fully covers the only parameter (userstory_id) with a clear description and type. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional semantic meaning. Baseline 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 'Get full details of a user story by ID' clearly specifies the action (get), the resource (user story), and the scope (by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like taiga_get_issue or taiga_get_project because the resource type is explicitly named.

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 used when you need full details of a specific user story, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives such as taiga_list_userstories for browsing or taiga_get_issue for other entities. No exclusions are stated, so the context is clear but not fully guidance-oriented.

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