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 the tool's behavior: it creates permanent collections, batches page and content creation efficiently, and requires context preparation. However, it doesn't mention potential failure modes, rate limits, or authentication requirements (though the input schema hints at write_key for some cases).

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 with clear sections: purpose statement, use cases, efficiency tip, and prerequisite. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence adds value. The bulleted list of use cases is efficient, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: clear purpose, detailed usage scenarios, efficiency characteristics, prerequisite resources, and sibling tool differentiation. The main gap is lack of information about return values or error conditions, but given the comprehensive usage guidance, this is still quite complete.

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 schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about 'structured outlines and tables' and 'explicit nesting levels and headings' which aligns with the content parameter, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Create a new standalone page in Roam') and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning it's 'the preferred method for creating a new page with an outline in a single step.' It explicitly differentiates from roam_process_batch_actions for adding content to existing pages.

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 excellent usage guidance with explicit 'Best for' scenarios (5 specific use cases), an explicit alternative tool (roam_process_batch_actions), and a prerequisite instruction ('ensure that you have loaded into context the Roam Markdown Cheatsheet resource'). This covers when to use, when not to use, and prerequisites comprehensively.

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