twocents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and meets it exceptionally: it details what the output contains (anchored text, element, markup, URL per heading), how it is structured, and the intended interactive workflow. It goes far beyond a simple 'fetch' and prepares the agent for real usage.

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?

Three sentences, each dense with purpose: the first states the core function and format, the second details the note contents and page URLs, and the third gives operational guidance. No filler, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly explains the return format (markdown grouped by page, note details, URLs). It covers both parameters contextually and provides a complete workflow for an agent, leaving little ambiguity for a tool with this moderate 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'room' and 'handled'. The description adds meaningful context for 'handled' by explaining it represents previously decided note ids and that such notes appear summarized rather than in full, which goes beyond the schema's field description.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('reviewer notes for a page shared with share_page'), and adds useful detail (markdown, grouped by page). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling share_page by focusing on retrieval rather than creation.

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 explicitly ties usage to pages shared via share_page, explains the workflow (show human, apply only approved notes), and instructs how to use the 'handled' parameter to filter previously decided notes. This gives clear when and how, even without naming alternatives beyond the sibling.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: reviewers need no login, updates go live, rooms are sticky per project, and content must be self-contained. Some gaps remain (e.g., permissions, lifecycle beyond updating), but the core behavioral traits are clearly communicated.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, covering return value, html/markdown selection, reviewer behavior, updates, feedback collection, and room persistence. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids repetition, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two content formats, room lifecycle, reviewer experience) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the returned review link, how updates work, what reviewers can do, and how feedback is collected, leaving little ambiguity for an agent.

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 each parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the semantic difference between html and markdown, advising preference for markdown, and clarifying room reuse semantics—value the schema alone does not provide.

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 opens with "Share a page or document and get back a review link", naming the verb, resource, and deliverable precisely. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_feedback by explicitly directing users there to collect notes, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance: choose "html" for self-contained pages and "markdown" for prose, preferring markdown when possible. It also references the sibling tool get_feedback for collecting notes and provides a conditional rule about reusing room ids when a .twocents/state.json exists.

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