Get session notes

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

The annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint false), so the description's job is to add context, which it does: it discloses that long notes are clipped unless full is set and that results span project, branch, and PR. It does not mention ordering or token/size budgets, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The resource and scope come first, followed by the clipping caveat, so the agent front-loads the most decision-relevant 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should hint at the return shape, which it does: a list of recent notes, possibly truncated. It lacks detail on ordering and on whether task/issue entries are interleaved, but for a three-optional-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the full-flag interaction with clipping but only restates the schema's 'first 600 characters'; the type parameter has no description in the schema and gets no explanation here beyond the enum values being self-descriptive.

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 resource (recent saved notes) and a precise scope: project-wide notes plus the current branch and PR. That scope statement separates it from generic memory lookups like recall or what_do_i_know, although the verb itself is only implied by the tool name.

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 never says when to call it rather than recall, what_do_i_know, or worklog, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer from the scope phrase alone that this is the lightweight 'what happened recently on this branch' lookup.

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