get_note_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it explains that OCR text is stored per resource, the tool exposes that text, and resources without OCR are still listed unless `ocr_only=True`. This transparently covers the tool's read-only nature and filtering behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing essential context and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 has an output schema (not shown but noted) and two well-documented parameters, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and filtering behavior, meeting all needs for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavior for `ocr_only` (non-OCR resources still listed unless true) and providing real-world context for `note_id`, raising the score to 4.

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 lists resources attached to a note, including OCR text for images and PDFs. This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like get_note or find_notes.

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 context on when to use the tool (to access OCR text within note resources) and explains the `ocr_only` parameter's effect. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, making it slightly incomplete for optimal guidance.

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