tagged

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses exact-match/no-stemming behavior, that misses return near tags in scope, and that results are newest-first. That is meaningful operational context beyond the schema, though it says nothing about result size, pagination, or scoping by initiative.

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 core purpose in the first clause, then layers detail. It is one long sentence and the tag-family enumeration is verbose, but nearly every clause conveys a distinct, useful fact rather than restating the name.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers matching semantics, fallback behavior, and ordering well. The main gap is the undocumented `initiative` scoping parameter, which an agent would need to understand before constraining a query.

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%: `tag` is documented in the schema as case-sensitive, but the description enriches it substantially by enumerating tag families (kind:, sig:, role:, lang:, topic:, status:) and their value shapes. The `initiative` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, keeping this below a 5.

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 specific verb and resource ('List nodes') plus the exact matching semantics ('tags array contains the given tag — exact match'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `search` by noting that loose text matching belongs there. An agent can tell this apart from `search` or `recall` without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative for loose matching ('For loose matching over text use `search prefix*`') and describes the miss/fallback behavior that tells the agent what to query instead. It gives clear usage context but does not enumerate when-not to use it against the many other retrieval siblings.

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