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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains key behaviors: truncation (default True shortens long bodies, pass False for full content), raw_html (returns HTML for round-tripping), and the limit cap. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, though the tool is read-only and likely safe.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then efficiently explains each parameter with conditional logic. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and it ends with a useful example. It is concise without omitting necessary detail.

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 has 4 parameters (none required), an output schema exists, and the sibling tools are listed, the description is complete. It explains all parameter behaviors, provides usage context (e.g., raw_html for preservation of formatting), and correctly distinguishes from the search alternative. The output schema covers return values, so no further explanation is needed.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains the optionality of 'item_key' with concrete scenarios, clarifies the default limits, describes the effect of 'truncate' and 'raw_html' flags, and gives a practical example showing how to use 'raw_html' with 'zotero_update_note' for round-tripping.

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 retrieves standalone or child notes from the active Zotero library. It specifies the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'notes', and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'zotero_search_notes' by directing users to that tool for searching note content.

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 conditional guidance: when 'item_key' is provided, only notes attached to that parent item are returned; when omitted, notes across the entire library are returned (capped by limit). It also directly tells users to use 'zotero_search_notes' if they want to search note content instead, offering a clear alternative.

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