get_tag

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (analyze tags and retrieve text) but does not mention read-only semantics, error behavior, preconditions (e.g., image must exist), or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or filler. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary detail.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description lacks essential context for agent selection: no usage guidelines, no behavioral traits, and no differentiation from sibling tools. It is minimally adequate for understanding purpose but incomplete for confident invocation in a broader toolset.

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 0%, so the description compensates by indicating that both 'subfolder' and 'filename' are used to specify the image. However, it does not elaborate on formats, path conventions, or the relationship between the two beyond the obvious, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 tool's function: given a subfolder and filename, it analyzes the corresponding generated image and retrieves WD1.4 tags as text. It uses a specific verb (取得する/retrieve) and resource (WD1.4 tags), and it is distinct from siblings like get_caption and get_picture.

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 alternatives like get_caption or get_picture. The usage context is only implied by the purpose, with no explicit 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.