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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It makes the read-only retrieval intent clear and specifies which subset of note data is returned (title, date, status), which is useful. However, it does not mention behavior on missing/invalid IDs, permissions, or the exact response format.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and the key returned fields, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the input, the operation, and the expected information categories. Some details such as response shape or error behavior are absent, but the core calling context is clear.

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 100%, so the schema already documents noteId as the Alt note ID. The description only repeats the need for a note ID and adds the context that it returns basic info, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 action (get) applied to a note resource identified by note ID, and enumerates the returned fields (title, date, status). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_note_transcript or list_note_components, which concern different data or operations.

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 it should be used when you have a note ID and need basic note metadata. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_notes, list_recent_notes, or get_note_transcript, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the incremental cursor behavior, token-saving intent, and first-call semantics. It does not address read-only safety or possible side effects, but the core behavioral contract is clearly described.

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, focused sentences: purpose, incremental usage pattern, and initial-call handling. Every sentence earns its place and the most important usage detail 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the operational loop, which it does by telling the caller to pass totalEntries from the last response. It is complete enough to call the tool correctly, though it does not describe the full response shape.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining how sinceIndex relates to the previous call's totalEntries and how to handle the initial call, going beyond the schema's per-parameter 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the real-time transcript of a note, which is a specific verb+resource. The incremental nature is also explicit, and this distinguishes it from siblings like get_note_info or list_note_components.

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 gives excellent practical usage guidance: pass the previous totalEntries to sinceIndex to get only new content, and omit or set to 0 on first call. It does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or name alternatives, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool returns a summary/list of components rather than full content, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what the exact return format is, or how it behaves for notes with no components.

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 concise sentences in Korean, front-loading the component type list and immediately scoping the intended use case. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, the output scope (component summary), and the intended use case. The only notable gap is the lack of detail about the exact return format, but the low complexity keeps this from being a significant issue.

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 for noteId, described as 'Alt 노트 ID'. The tool description adds only the general context of operating on a note and does not provide additional parameter-level meaning. According to the rubric, high schema coverage anchors this at baseline 3.

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 that the tool summarizes which components (transcript/memo/summary/recording/meeting_notes) a note has, making the resource and action specific. It also explicitly says it is not the transcript body, which helps distinguish it from get_note_transcript. However, it does not differentiate from get_note_info, which could plausibly return similar component metadata.

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 a clear when-to-use signal: use it when only the list of components is needed, not the full transcript body. This implicitly points toward get_note_transcript as the alternative for full transcript content. It does not explicitly address other sibling tools like get_note_info, but the usage context is strong.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It adds useful traits beyond the name: results are ordered by recency and the first item typically corresponds to the in-progress note. It does not mention edge cases such as empty lists, but for a zero-parameter read-only listing this is acceptable.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the core return value, and the second gives actionable guidance. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or schema, and the most important usage hint 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description covers what is returned, the ordering heuristic, and when to call it. The only minor omission is an explicit note about empty results, which is not critical for this kind of listing.

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 no parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description correctly focuses on result semantics rather than parameter details because there are none to document.

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 ('returns a list'), resource ('recently created/modified notes'), and tool context (Alt real-time transcription). It clearly describes what the tool does, and the 'recent' scope distinguishes it from search_notes, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a concrete trigger: call this first when looking for a lecture currently being recorded, and notes that the front item is usually the active note. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative filtering tools, so it misses full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'searches by title, etc.' and does not disclose whether content is also searched, whether results are sorted, paginated, or what the output shape is. This is minimal disclosure for a read operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the essential action with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important gaps: what exactly 'etc.' includes, how results are returned, and any limitations. The agent can guess the purpose but not fully anticipate behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented as a search term. The description adds a small amount of meaning by indicating the query is matched against titles ('제목 등'). This slightly exceeds the baseline but does not fully explain what 'etc.' covers.

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 action (search) on a specific resource (Alt notes) with a scope ('by title, etc.'). This is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like list_recent_notes and get_note_info, though the trailing 'etc.' makes the scope slightly fuzzy.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool to find notes by title. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools like list_recent_notes, nor any exclusion criteria. The context is inferable but not stated.

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