acm_taxonomy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that 'add' creates a 'category::value' tag, implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or what happens to existing tags. The description is minimal for a tool with both read and write operations.

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 concise, with a clear 'Args' section and a 'Returns' note. It front-loads the purpose and uses bullet-like formatting. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., using lists) and avoids 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 having 4 parameters and two actions, the description adequately explains the main functionality and return values. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return formats. It misses error conditions or edge cases, but for a straightforward tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role: action (show/add), category (required for add), value (creates category::value), and profile (which taxonomy to query/edit). It adds useful context beyond what the schema provides, such as the behavior of the 'value' parameter.

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's purpose: 'Consulta o edita la taxonomía de tags', specifying both actions (show and add) and the resource (tags taxonomy). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like acm_apply_tags or acm_annotate, which handle different aspects of tagging.

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 basic usage guidance by explaining the two actions and which parameters are required for 'add'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., for managing taxonomy vs applying tags to cards), nor does it mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools.

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