get-tagged-items

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but lacks explicit statements about side effects, authentication, rate limits, or response format. Without annotations, the burden is higher; however, the tool appears straightforward, and the description does not mislead.

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 a single, highly concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is perfectly front-loaded and appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 the simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details like what type of items are returned (e.g., todos, projects) and how results are structured, which could be important for an agent.

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 description for the 'tag' parameter is clear and matches the tool's purpose. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('items with a specific tag'). It is concise and directly conveys the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search-items' or 'get-todos' which may also filter by tags, leaving potential ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'search-items', 'get-todos'), the agent has no basis to decide which is appropriate. No exclusions, prerequisites, or usage context are mentioned.

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