kreta_notes

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a small amount of behavioral/scope context by specifying the note types, but it does not discuss auth, output format, or other behavioral traits. No contradiction with annotations.

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, focused sentence that states the tool's core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the relevant action and resource, though it omits parameter details that would make it more informative.

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?

While an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description fails to clarify the two optional parameters and offers no guidance about scope, filtering, or behavior. For an agent to invoke non-default calls correctly, important context is missing.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'child' or 'limit' parameters at all. An agent cannot determine what 'child' refers to or how 'limit' affects results from the provided text, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 ('lekérése' = retrieval) and the resource ('Tanári és intézményi feljegyzések' = teacher and institutional notes). It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast it with any sibling.

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 purpose implies the tool is for retrieving teacher/institutional notes, which gives some usage context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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