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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: login is required, at most one valid note per node, and orphaned notes (ref_path no longer present in the ADL) can appear after deletion or renaming. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but the added constraints are substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized into labeled sections for purpose, the refs parameter, an edge-case caveat, and the output shape. Dense but each section carries information; no obvious filler, though it is on the longer side for a two-parameter read tool.

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 present, the description supplies the return shape ({ code, id, data: { notes: [...] } } with field names), the auth requirement, the item cap, and the orphan-note caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the result is missing.

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%, so both id and refs are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description goes further by explaining the refs omission semantics (all up to 500) and the meaning of orphaned ref_paths, adding interpretive value beyond the schema's own wording.

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: returns the project's humanNote (normative human-authored notes on ADL nodes), with the login requirement and the one-note-per-ref_path constraint front-loaded. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling mutation tools add_note and delete_note purely from the description.

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?

Explicitly enumerates when to reach for it: checking before editing an existing project, referencing nodes that show human editing traces (_meta.d starting with "h:"), and answering questions about a specific node. It stops short of naming when not to use it or routing to a specific alternative sibling, so it is clear context but not full when/when-not guidance.

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