tags

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the result set is a superset that includes declared-but-unused tags (not just active ones), it carries counts by status, and it conditionally includes a theme doc defined by a `theme: <tag>` front-matter convention. That conditional-inclusion rule is a real disclosure the agent would not otherwise know.

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 with the core payload front-loaded and the conditional theme-doc rule tucked into a clarifying parenthetical. No filler, though the run-on structure makes it slightly harder to parse than two short sentences would be.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description carries most of the burden and does so adequately by enumerating the returned content. It omits any mention of result size, ordering, or pagination, which is a minor gap for a potentially unbounded listing.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless full listing rather than a filtered query.

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 precisely what the tool surfaces — every tag in use, declared-but-unused tags, descriptions, per-status counts, and the theme overview doc — so the resource and payload are unambiguous. It lacks an explicit verb (implied list/retrieve) and does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like `fields`, `collections`, or `get`, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the tag-listing tool purely from the name and payload description.

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