user_notes_v1_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the transparency burden. It discloses OAuth token requirements, the absence of required parameters, and points to an external guide for full details. However, it omits behavioral specifics such as response format, pagination, or any side effects, leaving gaps for a read operation with zero annotation support.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the endpoint and purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the purpose, parameter requirement, authentication note, and pointer to further documentation are all concise and directly useful.

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?

This is a simple GET with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the essential invocation details (endpoint, no required params, auth) and provides a pointer to the full guide. It does not explain return values, but for a straightforward 'Get notes' endpoint with a linked guide, this is adequate, though slightly incomplete without any output description.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add clarity by stating '无额外必填参数' (no additional required parameters) and mentions the oauthToken environment variable fallback, but this largely duplicates the existing schema descriptions for oauthToken and the generic optional body/query/headers 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 HTTP method and resource: '[GET] /user/notes/v1 - Get notes'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like user_notes_v1_put and user_notes_v1_delete by presenting the GET operation explicitly.

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 implies usage through the GET method and 'Get notes', and notes that no additional required parameters exist. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, relying on the tool name and method for differentiation.

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