read_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context on top: results are paginated and the tool returns the complete history rather than a truncated recent summary, which shapes how the agent should paginate and interpret output. It still omits what happens for an unknown matter and gives no sense of return shape or volume.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the pagination behavior and the non-summary guarantee are both stated compactly. Slightly dense with three resource types in one clause but nothing is wasted.

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 a read-only tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and result completeness but leaves parameter usage and return shape unexplained. Adequate to decide to call it, thin for calling it correctly.

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 and does not. '分页' hints at limit/offset but never explains them, leaves the unusual maximum of 5 on limit undocumented, and says nothing about the required 'matter' identifier's expected format.

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 (分页查看, paginated read) and resource (a matter's historical notes, opinions, task statuses), and the trailing clause '不会只保留最近摘要' implicitly contrasts it with summary-oriented tools. It stops short of naming a sibling such as context_status or refresh_context, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: reach for this when you need the full history rather than a recent digest. No sibling is named and there is no when-not guidance (e.g., use search_context for keyword lookup, use read_record for structured records).

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