Get All Resource Planning Tag For A Group

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the response is a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, which is helpful but not substantial. No additional traits like rate limits or authentication requirements are disclosed. Description does not contradict annotations.

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 5 sentences, including some redundancy (e.g., the purpose is stated twice with conflicting scope). It is moderately concise but could be more focused. The structure is logical but the mixed message about 'specific record' weakens it.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers pagination and includes required parameters. However, it lacks details about the response structure (fields of Resource Planning Tag), any relationships, or context about the resource. For a simple get-all tool, it provides adequate but not thorough context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all 4 parameters. The description repeats the required parameters (company_id, group_id) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. The endpoint path is included but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Gets all of the Resource Planning Tags belonging to a Group,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it later contradicts this by saying 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Resource Planning records by its identifier,' implying it can also retrieve a single record, which is not supported by the schema (no tag_id parameter). This ambiguity reduces clarity.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions controlling pagination with page and per_page, but does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'get_all_resource_planning_tag_for_a_company' or 'get_a_single_resource_planning_tag.' There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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