taiga_list_issues

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of revealing behavioral traits. It states 'List issues with optional filters' but doesn't disclose pagination, default ordering, response format, or any side effects (though unlikely). The phrase 'optional filters' is already implied by the schema having no required parameters, adding no new information. Behavior beyond the basic action is opaque.

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 short sentence, front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema. While concise, it lacks necessary detail, making it not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of contextual information. It provides only the core purpose and a vague mention of filters. It doesn't explain pagination behavior, default page size, or the shape of the response, leaving significant gaps for an agent invoking this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all nine parameters having detailed descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond a generic 'optional filters' phrase, which is redundant since the schema already documents each filter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the 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 a list operation on issues, with the verb 'List' and resource 'issues'. It doesn't provide a specific scope or distinguishing behavior beyond the resource, but it is unambiguous and distinct from get/create/delete issue tools. However, it doesn't differentiate from other list tools (e.g., list_tasks) except by the resource name.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for multiple issues, while taiga_get_issue is for a single issue, nor does it reference taiga_search for broader queries. The only implied usage is 'when you want to list issues', but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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