Get Tag Values

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it searches both predefined field options and preset definitions, supports simple and namespaced keys, is case-sensitive, and returns four specific pieces of information. This goes well beyond the basic operation, providing rich behavioral context.

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 information-dense and each sentence contributes value, starting with the primary action. It could be slightly shorter by removing redundant phrases like 'to find every documented value' after already stating the schema search, but overall it's well-structured and not excessively verbose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format (four pieces of information). It covers all important aspects: search scope, key types, case-sensitivity, and parameter usage. The parameter count and high schema coverage are fully leveraged, making the description self-sufficient.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by giving examples for tagKey (e.g., 'amenity', 'addr:street'), explaining case-sensitivity, and for options.limit, it clarifies purpose and performance benefit. This extra guidance elevates the score.

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 specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'all possible values for a specific OpenStreetMap tag key'. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_tags (which searches across tags) and get_preset_details (which focuses on presets) by focusing on enumerating all documented values for a single key, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly lists three use cases: discovering available values, learning terminology, and building UI lists. It also implies when to use it (e.g., 'Essential for understanding OSM's controlled vocabularies'). However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or compare alternatives, though the context is clear enough.

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