get_tagged_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add value by specifying 'directly applied' — implying inheritance or project-level tags are excluded — which is a meaningful scoping detail. However, it does not disclose return ordering, pagination, or how a tag is matched (by name or ID), leaving important behavior unexplained.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and the distinguishing scope ('directly applied'). It cannot be trimmed further, though the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral and parameter detail penalized elsewhere.

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?

While an output schema exists and covers the return shape, there are no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no sibling differentiation. For a single-parameter tool the definition is minimal but leaves the tag format and the distinction from search_todos unresolved, so an agent would still need to guess at correct invocation.

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 description must compensate, but it does not. The sole parameter 'tag' is a bare string whose format (name vs. ID, exact vs. partial match) is never clarified anywhere. The description merely restates what the schema already shows, adding nothing about how to properly populate the tag parameter.

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 action (get) and resource (tasks with a directly applied tag), which distinguishes it from general list tools like get_todos and get_inbox. The function is clear enough that an agent can separate it from most siblings based on the tag concept alone.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_todos (which likely also filters by tag) or the other get_* list tools. The phrasing 'directly applied tag' hints at a scope distinction from inherited tags, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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