Get tag

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: it raises MissingParameterError when project_id or name is absent, and that the result is a wrapper around a Tag model. However it says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/per_page/max_pages being present, which matters for a read tool.

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 single prose sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but the Args/Returns/Raises block is boilerplate that pushes the useful error-condition detail below low-value restatement. Moderate waste, not egregious.

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 an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is thin. The distinction between 'tag' and 'ref', the meaning of message/ref, and any pagination semantics are all absent, leaving the agent to guess on a majority of the inputs.

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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it doesn't. Worse, it tells the agent the required argument is 'name', but the schema exposes 'tag' and has no 'name' property — this actively misdirects on the most important parameter, and ref, page, message, per_page, max_pages and api_parameters are left unexplained.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: 'Get information about a specific tag in a project.' An agent can tell this is the single-tag fetch. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling gitlab_get_tags (list) or gitlab_get_release_by_tag, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus gitlab_get_tags, gitlab_get_release_by_tag, or gitlab_get_protected_tag. The only contextual hint is that project_id and name are required at call time, which is usage-adjacent but not an alternative-selection rule.

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