get_issue_by_ref

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions default session behavior and verbosity options, but does not detail error conditions, read-only nature, or rate limits. The behavior is adequately implied for a simple retrieval tool.

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 two sentences plus a brief parameter list, all front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential context: purpose, alternative tool, key parameters, and defaults. It could mention output structure briefly, but the schema handles that.

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 has 0% coverage, but the description adds meaning beyond parameter titles: it explains 'ref' as the human-readable '#N', lists verbosity options, and notes session_id falls back to default. This supplements the schema's bare type info.

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 gets an issue by its human-readable reference number (the '#N' shown in Taiga UI), specifying the verb and resource precisely. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_issue by noting it should be used when a ref number is available.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this instead of get_issue when you have a ref number.' It also mentions requirements (project_id) and defaults (verbosity, session_id), making it clear when and how to use the tool.

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