Get repository tag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds 'associated release metadata,' which provides additional context about the return value beyond a simple tag object. It does not contradict any annotation and enhances the agent's understanding of what the tool exposes.

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, complete sentence that conveys meaning without any fluff or redundancy. It earns its place by adding the release metadata detail without being verbose.

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?

For a simple read operation with an output schema available and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers the core purpose and return scope, though it could theoretically mention error conditions or behavior when the tag does not exist. Still, given the overall simplicity, it is well-rounded.

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 50% (project is described, tag_name is not). The description adds no additional parameter details, but both parameter names ('project' and 'tag_name') are self-explanatory. Since the schema partially documents params and the description does not compensate for the undocumented one, a middle score is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('one Git tag'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('associated release metadata') that sets it apart from sibling tools like list_tags or get_protected_tag. This makes its purpose immediately clear and unambiguous.

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 singular use ('one Git tag') but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_tags or get_release. There is no direct mention of alternatives or exclusions, though the singular wording hints at a fetch-by-name operation.

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