Get Tag Registry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the 'No auth needed' behavioral trait, which is valuable. However, it doesn't describe return format, pagination, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). Some behavioral context is missing for a tool with potential complexity in taxonomy structure.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and scope, second provides critical behavioral context ('No auth needed'). Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 read-only tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers purpose and one behavioral trait, but doesn't explain return values or potential complexities in the taxonomy structure. Given the sibling tools include multiple registry/listing tools, more contextual differentiation would be helpful.

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% with one parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. The baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context about parameter usage or effects.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('local tag taxonomy') with specific components (definitions, hero tags, lane-tag mappings). It distinguishes from sibling 'list_tags' by focusing on taxonomy/metadata rather than listing tag instances. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_lane_registry' which might overlap in lane-tag mappings.

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 implies usage for retrieving taxonomy/metadata rather than tag instances (contrasted with 'list_tags'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like 'get_lane_registry' or 'get_pm_playbook'. The 'No auth needed' provides some context but not comprehensive guidance on tool selection.

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