Bluetab

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond restating the purpose — no mention of what happens when the ID does not exist, whether the note body is truncated, or any auth/visibility constraints.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the resource. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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 tool is simple, and annotations cover the safety semantics, so not much is required. However, with no output schema the description should say something about the return value (fields of the entry) and the not-found behavior, both of which an agent calling by ID will need.

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 parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description's 'by ID' clarifies that the string is the note's unique identifier rather than, say, a title or slug. That is the minimum meaningful addition for a one-parameter lookup.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('Brain Dump note') qualified by identifier, so the agent knows this is a single-record fetch. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as list_brain_dump or search_tabs, which appear to operate on the same resource.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of list_brain_dump (bulk listing) or search_tabs (search). The agent must infer that this is for the case where an ID is already known.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world profile, so safety behavior is fully covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that — the response contains every tab title and URL — but says nothing about failure behavior for unknown IDs or whether results are ordered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource, the lookup key, and the payload in one pass, with no redundant or filler wording.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with a rich annotation set and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to invoke it and what comes back. The remaining gap is only edge-case behavior (invalid or missing ID), which is minor at this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema only says the parameter is a non-empty string. The description supplies the meaning of that string (the ID of a saved tab group), which is the minimum needed but adds no format, example, or sourcing hint for where such an ID is obtained.

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 saved tab group') and the lookup key ('by ID'), which implicitly separates it from the list_groups sibling by fetching exactly one record. It does not explicitly name the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 single-record-by-ID framing implies when to use it (you already have an ID), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer list_groups or search_tabs, nor any stated prerequisite such as needing a valid group ID first.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each note carries its page context, which is useful return-shape information, but it says nothing about ordering, volume, or pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, efficiently pairing the resource name with a parenthetical explanation of what brain dump notes are.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only list tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers the core resource and notes that page context is included. It could be stronger with a word on result volume or ordering, but nothing critical 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details because there are none to explain.

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 ('List Brain Dump notes') and clarifies what a brain dump is ('quick thoughts captured in BlueTab'). It implicitly contrasts with the singular sibling get_brain_dump_entry, though it never names an alternative 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_brain_dump_entry or search_tabs, and no mention of scope limits or ordering. The only signal is the verb 'List', which implies enumeration rather than single-item retrieval.

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

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

Annotations already declare that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields: name, notes, tab count, and dates. It does not discuss ordering, but the annotations and field list cover the main behavior an agent needs.

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 two short sentences with no wasted wording. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the sibling routing note follows immediately where it is useful.

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?

For a simple parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential scope, returned fields, and the key alternative. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could optionally mention ordering or whether all saved groups are returned.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document beyond the baseline. The description does not need to explain inputs, and it appropriately focuses on scope and returned fields instead.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list saved BlueTab tab groups. It also names the fields returned and explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_group, so an agent can identify its purpose without ambiguity.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: use this tool to list groups, and use get_group when the tabs of one group are needed. The alternative tool and the condition for selecting it are both named directly.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the shape of the returned data (projects with their group IDs) and says nothing about pagination, result size, or auth scope.

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?

A single twelve-word sentence that leads with the action and follows with the returned structure. No filler, no restatement of the title, nothing to trim.

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 the safety profile, the only real burden is describing what comes back — and the description names projects plus their contained group IDs. It could say more about result ordering or volume, but nothing essential 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the sentence correctly signals the call needs no arguments.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('List BlueTab projects') plus a stated payload ('the group IDs each project contains'), which implicitly separates it from list_groups. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to rule out, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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: a zero-parameter list tool is obviously the entry point, but the description never says when to choose it over list_groups or get_group. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the search spans every group, with no per-group scoping. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, or case sensitivity, which are the remaining unknowns for a search operation.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and the scope, with no filler or repetition of the title. Every clause ("saved tabs", "every group", "title or URL text") carries information.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only search with annotations covering safety, the description is close to sufficient. What an agent still cannot determine is the result shape, ordering, or whether results are capped, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single required "query" parameter, so the description must compensate. It does partially, clarifying that the query matches against title or URL text, but it gives no syntax, matching mode, or length constraints beyond the schema's minLength.

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 a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("saved tabs") and states the scope ("in every group") plus the match fields ("title or URL text"). This distinguishes it from the sibling listing tools (list_groups, list_projects, get_group), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as browsing a specific group instead. The only implied usage is that an agent calls it when it wants to find a tab by text, which an agent could already infer from the name.

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