get_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the return fields (tag name, tagged commit ID, message, creation date, lightweight/annotated), which clarifies the tool's output and implies a read-only operation without side effects. It does not describe failure scenarios or permissions, but for a simple read tool this is acceptable.

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: the first states the purpose and return fields, the second gives a practical use case. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 read tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns and when to use it, and the sibling comparison shows it is well-differentiated from list_tags and create_tag. No critical gaps remain.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters (owner, project, tagName) with descriptions, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating 'by name', 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'a specific tag by name', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tags and create_tag by focusing on detailed information for a single tag. It also states the intended use case for finding a commit associated with a release version.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool ('Use this to find the commit associated with a release version') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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