changedetection_get_tag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes 'WatchBase fields plus overrides_watch and LLM controls', which hints at return shape but names jargon without explaining it.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The raw endpoint line is mildly redundant with the prose but cheap and useful for API-aware callers.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so only by naming field groups ('WatchBase fields', 'LLM controls') without what they contain or the error case for an unknown UUID. Adequate for invocation, thin for interpretation.

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 uuid parameter is fully documented in the schema, including a UUID regex pattern, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description repeats 'by UUID' without adding format, sourcing, or error behavior beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one tag by UUID') and pins the exact endpoint, so it is clearly distinguishable from list_tags and get_watch. It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative for bulk retrieval.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by UUID' plus a required uuid parameter signals a single-record lookup, while list_tags is left for the agent to infer. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite guidance is given.

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