get_auto_tag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the action ('Get') and the resource. It does not disclose behavior on missing IDs, authorization requirements, or what 'details' includes.

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 very concise and front-loaded, with no filler. However, it is so terse that it misses opportunities to add helpful context while remaining short.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, this is minimally viable: the agent knows what to call and what argument to provide. But it lacks return-value context and usage/alternative info, leaving noticeable gaps.

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?

The schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter (100% coverage), so the description need not add much. It adds no extra semantics beyond the tool's name, but the schema is sufficient.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('auto tag details'), indicating a single-item lookup. It is implicitly distinct from siblings like list_auto_tags or get_asset_auto_tags, but it does not explicitly state that distinction.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus similar siblings (e.g., list_auto_tags for enumeration, get_asset_auto_tags for asset-specific tags). There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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