get_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'recent' notes, implying recency-based ordering, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what 'recent' means (e.g., time frame). This leaves gaps for a read operation that could have hidden constraints.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The parenthetical 'short-form posts' adds useful clarification without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly contrasting with siblings, but it's appropriately sized with zero waste.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits like ordering or authentication. With no output schema, it doesn't explain return values, which is a gap, but the simplicity of the tool keeps it from being severely incomplete.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'recent' notes, which doesn't directly map to a documented parameter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 ('Get') and resource ('your recent Substack notes'), with the parenthetical clarifying that notes are short-form posts. It distinguishes from siblings like get_post (for long-form posts) and get_profile_posts (for others' posts), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings like get_own_profile, which might also return user data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like get_post (for specific posts) or get_profile_posts (for posts from other users), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for retrieving notes versus other content types.

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