Roam Research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'provides content' and optional concatenation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, what format the content is returned in, or if there are any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the optional feature. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 apparent simplicity (retrieving a cheatsheet) and 100% schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. No output schema exists, so the description doesn't explain what 'content' means (e.g., markdown text, HTML, structured data). With no annotations, it also misses behavioral context like safety or performance characteristics. For a retrieval tool, this is minimally adequate but could be more informative.

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 both parameters (graph and write_key) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, nor does it explain how parameters relate to the cheatsheet retrieval. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Provides the content of the Roam Markdown Cheatsheet resource' - a specific verb ('provides') and resource ('Roam Markdown Cheatsheet resource'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like roam_create_page or roam_update_page_markdown by being a retrieval tool rather than a creation/modification tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other retrieval tools like roam_fetch_page_by_title.

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 implies usage context through 'optionally concatenated with custom instructions if CUSTOM_INSTRUCTIONS_PATH is set,' suggesting this tool is for accessing a predefined cheatsheet with optional customization. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like roam_search_by_text for general markdown queries or when the cheatsheet would be more appropriate than other resources. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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