bb_get_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a 'Get' (implying read-only) and reveals that the response includes the target commit, but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is minimal disclosure.

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, well-formed sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and notes that the response includes target commit info, which is useful given the lack of an output schema. It is slightly thin on what 'detailed information' entails, but given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema, it is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (name, workspace, repo_slug, filter, output_format) having its own description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific insight beyond what the schema already documents, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

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') and clearly identifies the resource ('detailed information about a specific tag') plus a distinguishing detail ('including its target commit'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like bb_get_tags (which lists tags) and other get tools.

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 clearly implies the use case: retrieving details for a single tag by name. Context is clear, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'Use bb_get_tags to list tags'). This is borderline between 3 and 4; the clarity of the resource makes the intended usage obvious.

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