linkding_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 the REST endpoint mapping, which helps with debugging, but says nothing about what happens when the id does not exist or what a returned tag contains. With annotations present, this is adequate but thin.

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. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint string is marginally redundant for an agent that only needs invocation semantics.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage needs little more than a clear verb and resource. The only real gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not hint at the shape of a tag, leaving the return payload undocumented.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Tag id.' with an exclusiveMinimum. The description's 'by id' phrasing adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: fetch a single tag by its id, and the underlying endpoint (GET /api/tags/<id>/) pins it down further. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like linkding_list_tags or linkding_create_tag, though it never names them explicitly.

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: use this when you already have a tag id, as opposed to listing tags. There is no explicit when-to-use, no guidance on what to do if the id is unknown (search/list first), and no mention of alternatives.

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