View Advisor Notes & Reminders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but never explicitly states it, nor does it mention side effects, default filtering behavior, or return format. The line about 'flagged that need your attention' adds context but not sufficient safety or outcome clarity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains zero wasted words. Every phrase contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise 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 view tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete: it doesn't clarify whether resolved notes are hidden by default (though schema implies false), doesn't state that the tool is read-only, and doesn't describe the output type. These gaps prevent a higher score, but the tool's simplicity keeps it at a minimally viable level.

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 single parameter 'show_resolved' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with the question 'Include resolved notes?', so the description need not repeat it. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 uses a clear verb ('See') and specific resource ('all my notes, reminders, and action items'), making the tool's purpose obvious. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'resolve_note', the focus on viewing advisor-flagged items is unique enough to warrant a 4.

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. The description implies usage for viewing flagged items but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or mention of related tools like 'resolve_note'.

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