task.note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that notes may be wrong and are provisional, but says nothing about persistence, whether notes are append-only, permissions, or what a call returns. For a write-style memory tool this is a clear gap.

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?

A short two-clause definition with the purpose front-loaded and a compact illustrative example; nothing is wasted. Slightly less tight than a maximally economical definition, but well-structured.

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 simple 4-parameter note tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the provisional nature of notes adequately. It leaves behavioral details (persistence, return value) unaddressed, which matters more given zero annotations.

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 75%, so the schema already documents text, about, and expect. The description's example ('this button is a search entry, click expects a search box') illustrates how text/expect relate, adding modest value, but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action and resource: recording current thoughts/judgments/expectations, with a concrete example that clarifies the intended granularity. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like knowledge.list or events.capture, but the 'declared hypothesis' framing makes its role reasonably identifiable.

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 phrase '先声明后验证' (declare before verifying) implies a usage pattern – jot down a hypothesis before checking it – but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternatives. Usage is left to inference.

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