get_tags

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirement ('requires token') which is valuable, but doesn't describe what 'Get all tags' actually means operationally - whether this returns all tags in the system, tags for current user, pagination behavior, or format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - just 6 words total. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get all tags from Bear') followed by the crucial prerequisite information ('requires token'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or wasted space.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that presumably returns data (tags), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the tags come in, whether this is a read-only operation, what scope of tags are returned, or any error conditions. For a data retrieval tool with zero structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 the action ('Get all tags') and resource ('from Bear'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_notes' or 'get_note', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 'requires token' which provides some context about prerequisites, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_notes' or how it relates to other tag-related operations. There's no explicit when/when-not usage guidance.

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