get_tagged_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get items' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear 'Args' section. It avoids unnecessary words, but the lack of additional context or examples slightly reduces its efficiency in fully informing the agent.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, the description should compensate more by detailing behavioral aspects and usage context, which it only partially does. It's minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that 'tag' is a 'Tag title to filter by', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic type. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'items with a specific tag', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_items' or 'search_todos' that might also filter by tags, so it's not fully distinguished from alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_items' or 'get_tags', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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