context_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the content is user-authored intent rather than derived figures. It also warns against treating the notes as data, preventing misuse. The behavior is simple (returns the notes), and the description sufficiently conveys the nature of what is returned.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Free-text goals, career plans, and constraints') and then immediately provides the crucial caveat about not treating them as data. No wasted words; every clause earns its place.

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, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is essentially complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and how to interpret it. One could argue it could explicitly state 'returns the full set of notes,' but the implication is already strong. The warning about non-data usage adds important context.

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 schema provides no constraint information. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related meaning because there are none to describe. The description does not need to compensate for parameter coverage gaps.

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 identifies the resource as user-written free-text notes about goals, career plans, and constraints. It distinguishes itself from the sibling financial tools by explicitly contrasting with ledger-derived figures, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 implicit usage guidance: these notes are qualitative intent, not quantitative data, so they should not be used for financial calculations. This effectively tells the agent when to use this tool (for context) and when not to (for numeric analysis). It stops short of naming alternatives but the sibling list makes the distinction clear.

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