Get Annotations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds extra value by clarifying that item_key must be the parent item, not the attachment, and that limit caps the returned annotations. This is beyond what annotations provide.

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 one concise sentence followed by a clear Args list. No filler or repetition, and the key clarification about the parent item is front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations are comprehensive, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and the parent-item nuance. Slight omission is that it says 'all' but the default limit is 100, which may confuse, though the parameter description mitigates this.

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%, but the description fully explains both parameters: item_key as 'the parent item, not the attachment' and limit as 'Maximum number of annotations to return (default 100)'. This completely compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'List all highlights and annotations on a paper's PDF' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_annotation/delete_annotation by being the read operation, and the mention of 'PDF' clarifies it's about PDF annotations.

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 implied by the specific function description, but there is no explicit mention of alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't say 'use this instead of list_notes' or 'not for non-PDF items', leaving some ambiguity in a large sibling set.

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