tags

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects. The description adds useful return-shape context (unused declared tags are included, counts are broken down by status), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or size limits.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and the scope distinction (in-use vs declared-but-unused). No filler, no repetition of the tool 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 zero-parameter, read-only inventory tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the notable inclusion of unused tags. It could be more complete by describing the structure of the per-tag descriptions and counts.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to clarify and the baseline is 4. The description correctly conveys that no filtering input is expected.

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 resource (tags/themes) and its exact scope: every tag in use plus declared-but-unused ones, with descriptions and counts by status. An agent can tell what it retrieves, though the verb is implicit and it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'list' tool.

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 statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among siblings such as 'list' or 'collections'. The usage is only implied by the inventory-like scope.

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