viwoods_read_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral detail beyond them: a hard cap of 8 pages per call, the fact that blank pages are silently omitted, and that a first-line header reports which pages were skipped. It stops short of describing auth/sharing requirements or how the images are delivered.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then parameter semantics, then the omission behavior. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain returns and largely does: images of the pages, blank pages withheld, header line identifying what was sent. It leaves minor gaps on how the images are delivered and any sharing/auth prerequisite implied by 'shared'.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: `notebook` accepts a title or an id, and `pages` are 1-based positions with a maximum of 8 per call. Both required parameters are given meaning that the bare schema cannot convey.

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 names a specific verb (read) and resource (pages of a shared Viwoods Paper notebook), and states the payload form ('as images, to read the handwriting'), which is what separates it from viwoods_list_notebooks or viwoods_search_handwriting. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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?

'to read the handwriting' implies the use case and implicitly contrasts with search_handwriting, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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