notation_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, and the 'first time in a session' hints at session-scoped behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is safe, has no side effects, or detail what the reference contains or returns. The transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences that earn their place. It leads with the action and resource, then adds the temporal usage hint. There is zero wasted text, and the structure is effective for quick scanning.

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 zero-parameter reference tool, the description covers the essential context: what it does and when to call it. It doesn't explain what TapScript notation is or what happens on repeated calls, but these are likely known or not critical for invocation. The description is complete enough for its simplicity, though a bit of extra detail on the reference's content would elevate it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed since the schema has no properties. The tool is simple and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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: 'Read the TapScript notation reference.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like directive_reference and stage_reference by explicitly focusing on notation. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately identifiable.

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 provides explicit timing guidance: 'Call this before writing notation for the first time in a session.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks the full 'when-not/alternatives' guidance that would earn a 5.

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