get-tags

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions bookmark counts but does not disclose that the tool is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or any rate limits. For a listing tool, the behavioral impact is minimal, but more context would be helpful.

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 two sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the primary action and then adds key features. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is a simple list operation with clear parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention that results are paginated and that the 'relevance' sort requires nameContains, but that is already in the schema. The sibling context helps differentiate.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 'List tags with their bookmark counts', specifying the action (list), resource (tags), and a key feature (bookmark counts). It distinguishes from siblings like get-tag (single tag) and get-lists (lists).

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 mentions 'Supports filtering and pagination', which implies use cases, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-tag or delete-tag. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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