fetch_v3_tags

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('Lists') and hints at the output ('comprehensive tag list'), but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. It's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage without any wasted words. Every sentence adds clear value, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a list operation. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of the tag list) and doesn't address potential limitations or dependencies, leaving room for improvement.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately avoids redundancy, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.

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 action ('Lists') and resource ('v3 audio tags'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_v3_audio_tags_guide', which appears to serve a similar purpose, preventing a perfect score.

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 usage context ('Use when: preparing text for text_to_speech_v3 or text_to_dialogue with emotions and effects'), which is helpful for guiding the agent. It doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives like the sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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