would_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: "Read-only." That tells the agent the operation is non-mutating. It doesn't cover return format or edge-case behavior, but for a simple pre-flight query that is a minor gap.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the operative guidance ("Run BEFORE creating a release tag") and ends with the safety trait. No wasted words.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only pre-flight check with no output schema, the description supplies the purpose, timing, and safety profile an agent needs. Only the expected result format is left implicit, which is acceptable here.

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% with a single required parameter (repo, documented as "path to a local git repository"). The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting; baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: checking whether HEAD would reuse a version label already naming other code. It clearly frames the operation as a tag-label collision check, though the phrasing as a question is slightly indirect and doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from (check_versions, explain_label, compare).

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?

"Run BEFORE creating a release tag" gives explicit timing/context for when to invoke the tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not conditions, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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