note_batch_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only operation through 'Fetch' and explicitly states the one-call and 20-item limit. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing/invalid IDs, partial failure, authentication via token, or return ordering/shape. Basic transparency exists but is incomplete.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and key constraint. Every word contributes: 'Fetch multiple notes by id', 'single call', and 'up to 20 ids'. No filler, no 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?

The description gives a basic adequate overview for a simple batch get, but it lacks details that an agent would need given there is no output schema and no annotations: return format, order, behavior for missing IDs, and auth expectations. It also fails to distinguish from note_batch_resolve, making full context incomplete.

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 property descriptions have 0% coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does clarify that 'ids' are note identifiers, which maps directly to the IDs array. However, it says nothing about the 'token' parameter, its role, or any format details beyond the schema. The compensation is only partial.

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 ('Fetch'), names the resource ('notes'), specifies the selection criterion ('by id'), and highlights the batch/single-call behavior with a hard cap (20 ids). This clearly distinguishes it from note_get (single note) and other siblings.

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 usage context is implied: fetch multiple notes by ID in one call. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like note_get for single fetches or note_batch_resolve, nor does it say when not to use this tool. The sibling note_batch_resolve creates ambiguity that the description does not address.

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