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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly implies a read-only retrieval operation and specifies the required ID format, but it does not mention behavior on missing/incorrect IDs, authorization, or rate limits. It is minimally adequate for a simple fetch tool.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The action is stated first, and the critical parameter format and example are front-loaded in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential invocation details: how to construct the ID and where to obtain it. Minor omissions like error behaviors or permissions are unlikely to block correct invocation.

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?

The input schema only defines note_id as a string with no description. The tool description compensates fully by specifying the exact structure ('<company>/<project>/<file-without-extension>') and giving a realistic example, plus the source of the value (search_notes results).

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 uses a specific verb ('Pobierz' / retrieve) and names the exact resource: the full content of a single note by identifier. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like search_notes, which searches, and list_projects, which lists projects.

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 explicitly says the identifier comes from search_notes results and provides a concrete format with an example. It implies the correct workflow: first search_notes, then get_note. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses output fields but not side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior on missing projects. Being a read operation is implied but not stated. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond purpose.

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, front-loaded with the action, no redundant wording. Efficient and well-structured, with the essential parameter explanation in the second sentence.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main purpose, parameter semantics, and expected output fields. Lacks error-handling context and explicit usage guidance, but adequate for basic invocation.

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 has no description, so description compensates by explaining `project` as a project key with example 'workmate'. Gives clear semantics for the single parameter, exceeding what the schema provides.

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?

States verb 'return' and resource 'project status', lists output fields (company, health, phase, summary, note count, open action items). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_projects (lists projects) and get_note (fetches a note).

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?

Implied usage is for retrieving status of a specific project, but no explicit when/when-not or alternatives are mentioned. Does not clarify when to use list_projects instead or exclude other tools. Lacks explicit routing guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Wypisz' = list) and specifies the data source ('dostępne w bazie wiedzy'). It does not mention side effects, but none are expected for a list operation. It adds the context that the projects are from the knowledge base, which is useful. No contradictions.

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, compact sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and return fields. No filler or redundancy. The critical information (action, resource, returned attributes) is front-loaded.

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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It specifies what the tool does and what fields are returned. The only minor gap is that 'pionu' (vertical) is not defined, but in context of the knowledge base and sibling tools this is likely understood. Overall, an agent can call this tool correctly without ambiguity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline per the rubric is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It provides a concise summary of what the tool returns (key, name, description), which aligns with the expected output.

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 uses a specific verb 'Wypisz' (list) with a clear resource 'projekty pionu' (projects of the vertical) and states the returned fields (key, name, description). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_notes and get_note, which deal with notes, and get_project_status, which presumably reports status rather than listing projects.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. However, the sibling names and the tool's purpose make it implicit: use it to list projects, not to search notes or get a single note/status. There are no usage exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, so it leaves some inference to the agent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of matches (metadata + snippet) sorted by relevance, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention read-only behavior, error conditions, authentication needs, or how limit affects results, so transparency is partial.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action appears in the first sentence, followed by return behavior and optional filters. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting with blank lines and code spans is slightly loose.

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?

The description covers the core search purpose, return shape, sorting, and both optional filters. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required. Missing context includes query syntax, limit semantics, and when to use get_note instead, so it is adequate but not complete for a tool with no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains project with a concrete example ('scada-integration') and participant as a surname fragment, adding real meaning. However, it does not clarify the query parameter format beyond 'keywords' or explain the limit parameter's behavior, leaving gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Przeszukaj notatki ze spotkań' (search meeting notes) by keywords and metadata. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_note, list_projects, and get_project_status by stating it returns a ranked list of matches rather than a single note or project data.

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 implies usage: it is for searching meeting notes and optionally filtering by project or participant. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_note or when to use get_note instead, leaving the choice between search and retrieval tools to inference.

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