get_annotations

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 disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, and 'all annotations/comments' conveys scope, but it does not mention return format, ordering, or what happens when nodeId is omitted. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's action, target, and optional scope. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary background information.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key decision: document-wide vs. specific-node retrieval. It does not spell out the output shape, but the resource being returned is clearly named and the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major gap.

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%, and the nodeId description in the schema already says 'Node to get annotations for.' The description adds the document vs. specific-node framing, but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('annotations/comments'), and a clear scope ('document or a specific node'). This clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like set_annotation and from other read tools like get_node_info or get_selection.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: to retrieve annotations/comments, either document-wide or for a particular node. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is immediately evident and requires no inference.

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