get_tag_items

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate the read-only nature. The description goes beyond annotations by specifying that it returns items 'with counts', adding useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose if results are paginated or ordered, which is acceptable for a simple read operation.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's action and what it returns. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler. It is perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It lists all item types and mentions counts. The only gap is that it does not explain the return format or whether counts are separate, but this is not critical for a straightforward list retrieval tool.

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% for the single parameter 'id', which is described as 'Tag UUID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No further parameter details are needed.

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 specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'all items linked to a specific tag', listing the item types (contacts, entries, tasks, notes, companies) and mentioning counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tag (which likely returns tag metadata) and list_tags (which lists tags without items).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search or specific list tools. While it is clear that this tool retrieves all item types for a tag, it does not mention when it is inappropriate to use (e.g., when only a specific item type is needed) or any prerequisites. The usage context is implied but not stated.

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