get_access_tag

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose scope requirements, authorization needs, error behavior, or output structure. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 with no filler or redundant content. It is efficiently structured, though it could have used the space to add sibling differentiation or usage context.

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 two-parameter getter, the description is minimally viable, but it does not state what the response contains, whether the tag must exist, or how it relates to other Access resources. No output schema exists, so the description could have provided more detail without being excessive.

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%, and both required parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning, but the schema itself already explains tag_name and account_id, so the baseline of 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 says 'Get details of an Access tag', which identifies a specific verb and resource. It is clear enough to distinguish from 'list_access_tags' by name, but it does not explicitly call out how it differs from sibling tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_access_tags or other Access-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the tag_name from a prior list call.

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