get_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses one real trait: the lookup searches all scopes rather than one. It says nothing about what happens when the tag is missing, permission/file-access requirements, or case sensitivity, which are the gaps an agent would care about for a lookup 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-line purpose is front-loaded and the whole entry is short with no filler. The 'Args:' block duplicates structure already carried by the input schema, which is mildly redundant but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the purpose plus both params are covered. What is missing for a file-path-driven lookup tool is error behavior (unknown tag) and any link to load_project, leaving the agent to guess at the call sequence.

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%, so the description is the only documentation, and it does name both required params. However, 'l5x_path: Path to a .l5x file' only restates the parameter name plus file type, while only tag_name ('searches all scopes') adds genuine meaning, so it compensates only partially.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get details for a specific tag by name'), which clearly separates it from the plural sibling get_tags and from get_udt/get_aoi. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether load_project must run first even though that sibling exists in the family. The only usage-ish hint is 'searches all scopes', which is behavioral rather than routing guidance.

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