superset_tag_get

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the purpose and does not mention potential errors (e.g., if the tag ID does not exist), authentication requirements, or any side effects. While the 'get' implies a read operation, the description does not explicitly disclose behavior beyond the basic retrieval.

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 and well-structured, consisting of one purpose statement, an important usage note, and a parameter definition. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy. The key information is front-loaded, and the important note is clearly emphasized.

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 simple 'get by ID' tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, prerequisite, and parameter semantics. An output schema is present, so return values do not need to be explained. The only minor gap is the lack of error handling or not-found behavior, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity. Overall, the description is sufficiently 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?

The input schema only defines tag_id as an integer, but the description adds meaning by specifying 'Tag ID (integer from tag_list result).' This clarifies the origin and type of the parameter, which is valuable given the schema description coverage is 0%. It adequately compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, explaining that the ID comes from the list operation.

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 function: 'Get tag information by ID.' This is a specific verb+resource indicating a lookup operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like superset_tag_list (which lists tags) and superset_tag_get_objects (which retrieves objects associated with a tag), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 includes an explicit usage guideline: 'if the ID is unknown, call superset_tag_list first.' This tells the agent when to use this tool compared to the list alternative, providing clear context and a direct prerequisite. It effectively communicates the condition under which this tool should be invoked.

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