open_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'open' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether the app must be running, what happens if note doesn't exist, or if it focuses the app). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is too terse. It lacks critical details, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise. A 3 reflects adequate brevity with insufficient depth.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover expected behavior (e.g., return value, error handling, or whether new_window affects behavior). There are clear gaps for a tool that opens an app note.

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 0%, but the description adds no meaning for either parameter. It does not explain what 'note_id' format is expected or what 'new_window' does (e.g., 'open in a new window'). The default value and required status are already in schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Open an existing note in the UpNote app by its id.' It specifies the action (open), the resource (existing note), and the target (UpNote app). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_note (retrieve data) or create_note (create new), though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool. No mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or edge cases. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and one-line description.

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