get_notetype_info

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 only says 'get detailed schema information,' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only status, mention error behavior (e.g., if the notetype doesn't exist), or describe what 'detailed schema information' includes. This is minimal disclosure.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification; while it is efficient, it omits critical details that would earn 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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are partially covered. Yet the description does not mention error handling, the read-only nature (with no annotations to cover that), the purpose of the output_file parameter, or what constitutes 'detailed schema information.' This is incomplete for an agent to use correctly without significant inference.

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 itself does not explain either parameter. The required 'notetype_name' is only implied by 'specific notetype,' and 'output_file' is entirely unexplained. The agent would have to guess what output_file does, which is a severe gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('detailed schema information about a specific notetype'), making the operation clear. It distinguishes from list_notetypes implicitly by focusing on a single notetype, but it does not explicitly name the sibling or the distinction, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_notetypes. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage on its own.

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