get_annotations

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

The description honestly states that the tool retrieves annotations, which is a read operation with no side effects. Since no annotations are provided, this basic transparency is adequate but does not disclose return format or pagination behavior.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and scope, making it efficient.

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 read tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It could be slightly improved by hinting at the return type, but overall it is complete enough for selection.

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%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as the necessity of nodeId or the default of includeCategories. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'annotations', and distinguishes between 'all annotations in the current document' and 'specific node', making it easy to understand the tool's scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'set_annotation' which modify annotations.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to retrieve annotations either from the entire document or a specific node. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like 'get_annotation' (if it existed) for single annotations.

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