getKind1Notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't describe what 'Get' entails (e.g., querying Nostr relays, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or response format), leaving critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that interacts with a decentralized network.

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 without unnecessary words. It avoids redundancy and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (fetching data from Nostr relays with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like relay interaction, which are essential for effective agent use in this context.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides, as schema description coverage is 100% with clear documentation for pubkey, limit, and relays. This meets the baseline score of 3, where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately without extra value from 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 action ('Get') and resource ('text notes (kind 1) by public key'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the note type (kind 1) and target (public key), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getLongFormNotes or getProfile, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like getLongFormNotes (for kind 30023) or getProfile (for kind 0), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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