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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the description only needs to add context. It adds a useful behavioral norm ('read it once before writing files'), implying static reference content rather than live state, but says nothing about size, pagination, or how the notes are organized.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core content scope and ending with the actionable directive. The middle content list is dense and comma-heavy but each item signals real content an agent might need.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description's main job is to say what the notes contain and when to read them, which it does. Only minor gaps remain, such as how the notes are structured or whether any section is authoritative over sibling tools.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter guidance.

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 names the resource (authoring notes: per-type file locations, plugin rules, boss/combat AI notes, Lua hook reference), so an agent can tell roughly what it returns. But the head is a noun phrase ('Where each config type's files go...') rather than a clear verb+resource statement, and the listed 'Lua hook quick reference' overlaps with the sibling get_local_lua_reference, blurring the distinction.

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 closing clause 'Read it once before writing files' gives an explicit trigger condition for calling the tool. It does not name alternatives (e.g., get_local_lua_reference for Lua details, get_config_schema for schemas), so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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