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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses title extraction and folder defaults but omits behavioral details like side effects, irreversibility, authentication needs, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, the second explains important details (title extraction, folder). Efficient and well-structured.

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 simple creation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and key defaults. It lacks mention of return value or confirmation, but given the simplicity, it is largely sufficient.

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 100%, but the description adds value: it explains that the first line of markdown becomes the title, which is not in the schema. The folder parameter default is also reiterated, but schema already includes that. Overall, description enhances parameter understanding.

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 verb 'create', the resource 'note', and the source 'Markdown content'. It explains that the first line becomes the title and mentions optional folder with default. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_note, get_note, etc.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_note). It implies usage for creating new notes but lacks explicit exclusions or conditions, leaving it to the agent to infer from sibling names.

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

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral context: the note is moved to Recently Deleted (not permanently erased), which is important for decision-making. However, it does not detail side effects, permission requirements, or recovery timeframe.

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?

Extremely concise at two sentences, with the most critical information first. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 delete operation without output schema, the description adequately covers the action and its immediate consequence. It could mention that the note enters a recoverable state, but the core behavior is clear.

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 schema already describes both parameters (title required, folder optional). The description adds meaning by clarifying that title is the primary identifier and folder is for disambiguation, which is not redundant with 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 verb (delete), resource (note), and method (by title). It also distinguishes from siblings like update_note by specifying the action and the consequence ('moved to Recently Deleted').

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?

It implies when to use the folder parameter for disambiguation but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose delete_note over other tools like search_notes or update_note. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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 states the output format (Markdown) but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., note not found), authentication requirements, or rate limits. Basic behavioral info is present, but significant gaps remain for a read operation.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and output format, then adds the optional parameter. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.

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 tool's simplicity (two params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essentials: what it does, required input, output format, and optional disambiguation. Missing error handling details, but overall adequate for a straightforward retrieval 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value: 'by its title' and 'Optionally specify folder to disambiguate' reinforce but don't extend the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the full content of a note by its title, returned as Markdown.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from siblings (create, delete, list, search, update) by focusing on retrieval. Could be improved by noting it returns a single note, not a list.

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 mentions 'Optionally specify folder to disambiguate,' providing a clear use case for the folder parameter. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it suggest using search_notes when the title is unknown. The sibling context helps but is not integrated.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields and optional filters, but does not mention default behavior (e.g., sort order, default limit), potential side effects, or authentication requirements. This is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves gaps.

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?

Two sentences are used, containing only relevant information. No redundant or extraneous text. The key purpose and options are front-loaded.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately describes the return format. The tool is simple with only two optional parameters. However, it does not mention pagination or default limit behavior, which are common for listing tools. Still, it is mostly complete for its complexity.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (limit and folder), and the description reiterates these options. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal value beyond summarizing the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (list notes), the source (Apple Notes), and the returned fields (title, folder, dates, pinned status, snippet). It distinguishes from siblings like create_note and delete_note by focusing on listing, but does not explicitly differentiate from search_notes, which might offer more advanced filtering.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_notes. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The description assumes the agent will infer usage from context.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions returns metadata but does not explain behavior for no matches, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no extraneous information. Every word adds value.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks details about default limit, ordering of results, or what specific metadata is returned, leaving some gaps.

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 100%, but the description adds value by specifying that 'query' searches in title and snippet, which is beyond the schema's 'Search keyword' description. This clarifies the scope of the parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches Apple Notes by keyword in title and snippet, and returns matching notes with metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notes (listing all) and get_note (single note retrieval).

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 for keyword-based search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_notes or get_note. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

The description explicitly discloses the critical behavioral trait: 'Deletes the old note and creates a new one', which is essential because a user might assume in-place modification. This transparency is high. No annotations are present to conflict.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the main action and then adding the important behavioral detail. Every part is informative, with no redundancy or extraneous text.

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 straightforward nature (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and behavioral change. It lacks mention of error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), but is otherwise sufficient for usage.

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%, but the description adds value by clarifying that the first line of markdown becomes the title (with or without #), which is not in the schema. This extends understanding beyond the parameter 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 'Update an existing note in Apple Notes', specifying the verb (update), resource (note), and system (Apple Notes). It distinguishes from siblings like create_note and delete_note by describing that this tool deletes the old note and creates a new one, making it a unique replacement operation.

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 when to use the tool (to update content while preserving folder) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Sibling tools are provided in context but not referenced in the description.

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