get_pinned_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the filtering behavior (active, non-archived, non-trashed) and return type. However, it does not mention potential side effects or limitations like pagination, which prevents a perfect score.

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 extremely concise, using a single line for purpose followed by clear Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary words, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (one optional param) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the filter and parameter, leaving return details to the schema. Slightly higher score possible with more context on ordering or auth, but adequate.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning to the 'query' parameter, explaining it as a string to match against title and text. This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get only pinned notes' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_archived_notes and get_trashed_notes by explicitly mentioning the filtering criteria.

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 implies usage for retrieving pinned notes but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find or search_by_keyword. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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