Roam Research

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it performs verification queries after creation, mentions rate limit concerns for large outlines, and requires loading the 'Roam Markdown Cheatsheet' resource beforehand. However, it lacks details on error handling or response format, which could be improved.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose and key usage guidelines. It uses bullet points and bold text for emphasis, but it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating warnings about duplicates and API usage) and could be slightly more concise by merging related points.

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 complexity of the tool (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral aspects like verification and rate limits. However, it lacks details on the output format or error scenarios, which would enhance completeness for a tool with no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'outline' defines new blocks, warns against including parent block text to avoid duplicates, and explains how 'block_text_uid' works for nesting under existing blocks. This compensates well, though it doesn't cover all parameters like 'graph' or 'write_key' in depth.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add a structured outline to an existing page or block' with specific details about customization and nesting. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'roam_create_page' for new pages and 'roam_process_batch_actions' for complex nesting, avoiding tautology.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: use 'roam_create_page' for new pages, 'roam_process_batch_actions' for complex nesting or large outlines, and this tool for simpler, contiguous hierarchical content. It also includes specific scenarios like 'Adding supplementary structured content to existing pages' and warnings about duplicate blocks.

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