zotero_get_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly, explains the library-wide scope, documents the truncation default and its effect, cautions that query searches the stripped-text body, and covers raw_html behavior. While it doesn't explicitly state permission needs, the operational behaviors (truncation, html vs stripped, scope) are well covered for a read tool.

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 and efficient, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence, then proceeding mode-by-mode with clear conditional logic. Two concrete examples at the end reinforce usage. Every sentence earns its place — no filler or repetition despite covering 5 parameters and two operation modes.

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 5 parameters, dual operation modes, no annotations, and a complex sibling landscape, the description is remarkably complete. It covers list vs search mode, parameter interactions, default behaviors, scope constraints, and round-trip editing workflow. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation isn't required. Minor gap: it could explicitly note what happens when both query and item_key are passed rather than just stating they can't be combined.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 5 parameters, and it does: item_key (child notes scope), query (case-insensitive substring over stripped text), limit (default 20), truncate (default True, list-mode-only caveat), raw_html (original HTML for edit round-trip). Each parameter's behavior is explained beyond type/schema. Slight deduction because not every parameter interaction (e.g., raw_html with query) is fully spelled out.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Read notes from the active Zotero library') and clearly distinguishes two modes: listing (with/without item_key) and searching (with query), which differentiates it from siblings like zotero_get_annotations (annotations) and zotero_get_item_metadata (metadata). The 'Omit query to LIST... Pass query to SEARCH...' structure makes the dual behavior explicit.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for each mode ('Omit query to LIST notes' vs 'Pass query to SEARCH'), states constraints (query and item_key cannot be combined), and references the scope ('active library only') with an alternative (zotero_switch_library to change). It also mentions raw_html for round-tripping via zotero_manage_note, tying it to a sibling workflow.

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