roam_markdown_cheatsheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by noting it 'prevents common syntax errors' and 'guides tool selection,' which goes beyond annotations. It doesn't describe the output format, but for a read-only reference the annotations carry the main safety burden.

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 long but front-loaded with the main purpose and then organized into a categorized list. Each sentence adds value, and the IMPORTANT warnings are clearly highlighted. It is appropriately detailed for a comprehensive reference tool, though slightly verbose.

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 read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists the full scope of content covered, provides usage prerequisites, and includes warnings about guidelines. It explains why to load it and mentions the companion function. No significant information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, as both parameters (graph, write_key) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not mention parameters, but because the schema fully documents them, the baseline is 3. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Provides the comprehensive Roam syntax reference.' It enumerates a detailed list of covered topics (formatting, links, queries, diagrams, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like roam_create_table or roam_add_todo. The purpose is unmistakable and specific.

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 instructs 'Always load this cheatsheet before creating or updating Roam content' and explains it prevents syntax errors and guides tool selection. It also names a prerequisite: 'call roam_get_guidelines for this graph once per session before using this tool.' This is clear when-to-use guidance with an alternative tool mentioned.

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