find_gameplay_tag

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds far more: an unregistered tag is silently coerced to empty/None, and a query on an empty tag fails identically to a non-matching valid tag, making the control case indistinguishable from the test case. That failure-mode disclosure is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the question and the return shape, then the rationale, then sibling routing, then the explicit Returns block. Every sentence earns its place, though the em-dash-chained middle sentence packs three clauses and is denser than it needs to be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description supplies the return shape inline ({tag_name, found, tag_string}), covers the failure semantics, and routes to alternatives. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% for the single tag_name parameter, so baseline is 3. The description lifts it by specifying that the lookup is an EXACT string match (contrasted with prefix/pattern search in query_gameplay_tags), which tells the agent the argument must be a fully-formed tag rather than a fragment.

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?

Opens with a specific yes/no question about a precise resource (does this exact tag string exist and resolve now) and names the exact data returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly routing prefix/pattern work to query_gameplay_tags and definition lookup to get_gameplay_tag_source.

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?

Gives an explicit when: check it as a precondition BEFORE using a tag anywhere, and as confirmation that create_gameplay_tag registered live even after an ini restore. It also names two alternatives and the conditions under which they apply, leaving nothing to inference.

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