read_notes

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 discloses the read-only nature (from local filesystem) and the two operational modes, including return format. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., if file does not exist) or performance considerations. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear summary, then uses bullet-like paragraphs for args and returns. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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 an output schema exists (though not provided), the description provides sufficient information about the return format (JSON string). It covers the core functionality adequately. Minor gaps include lack of error handling details, but overall it is complete for a simple read tool.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no description. The description compensates fully by explaining that filename is optional, gives an example ("ideas.md"), and states the behavioral difference when omitted vs. provided. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: reading personal notes from the local filesystem. It distinguishes two modes (listing or reading a specific note) based on the optional filename parameter. This differentiates it from sibling tools like append_note, save_note, or semantic_search, which have different purposes.

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 explains when to use each mode (with or without filename). While it does not provide explicit 'when not to use' or compare directly to alternatives, the context is clear enough for the agent to decide. It could be stronger by noting that save_note or append_note are for writing.

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