has_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It mentions the return type (TagExists object indicating existence) but does not state side effects (none expected) or whether it is idempotent. For a simple existence check, this is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 brief (two sentences) and includes structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description fully explains the action, parameter, and return type. An output schema exists, and the description complements it well. No critical information is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds necessary meaning to the 'tag' parameter: 'Name of the tag to check for existence.' This clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's simple type declaration.

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 explicitly states the action ('Check if a specified tag exists'), the resource ('tag in the user's Bauplan data catalog'), and the method ('using a tag name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_tag' or 'get_tags'.

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 for checking existence of a single tag, which is distinct from 'get_tags' (listing all). However, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor mention alternatives. The purpose is clear enough to infer usage.

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