get_annotations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get all annotations' without disclosing return format, pagination, category handling, or behavior when no annotations exist. The phrase 'current document' conflicts with the required nodeId property, creating ambiguity about whether nodeId can be omitted or special.

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 wasteful wording. It efficiently states the core action but lacks structure to convey additional context, such as usage scenarios or return details.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description should provide more context about expected return values and behavior when categories are excluded. The current description is minimal and leaves the agent with significant unknowns, especially the ambiguous 'current document' scope.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the concept of 'current document' to nodeId, which is not in the schema, but it doesn't clarify includeCategories beyond its schema default and description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents the parameters.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'annotations', with scope 'current document or specific node'. It distinguishes from write siblings like set_annotation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar read tools like get_reactions.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of set_annotation for creating or get_reactions for reactions, and no exclusions or prerequisites are provided. The only context is the scope phrase, which is too vague to serve as usage direction.

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