get_tagged_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that it gets items with a tag, omitting details like pagination, ordering, case-sensitivity, or whether it returns all types of items. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Very concise (one sentence plus arg list). No fluff. However, the 'Args:' header is unnecessary for a single param, but overall structure is efficient.

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?

Considering the tool's simplicity (1 param) and that an output schema exists, the description is still incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'items' are (todos? projects?) or provide examples. An output schema may define return structure, but the meaning of filtered items remains ambiguous.

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 single parameter 'tag' is described as 'Tag title to filter by', which clarifies it's a title not an ID. Since schema property lacks a description (0% coverage), this adds some value but no format details or possible values. Baseline 3 due to low schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'items with a specific tag'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_tags (which returns tags) and other getters that filter by different criteria. However, it doesn't specify what 'items' includes (todos, projects, etc.), which could be ambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_todos or get_projects. The description only states what it does, not the context of use or when to avoid it. There are many sibling tools without differentiation hints.

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