get_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and entity requirement, omitting details like pagination behavior (limit parameter), ordering, or that it is a read-only 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a key constraint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has 5 parameters, no required fields, and no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation but lacks guidance on usage scenarios and parameter behavior beyond the entity requirement.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by listing the entity types corresponding to the ID parameters and stating the constraint of at least one required. However, it does not explain the limit parameter or provide further detail on how IDs are used.

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 notes for entities (plan, project, task, contact). The verb 'get' and resource 'notes' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like add_note or get_task_details.

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 specifies that at least one entity ID must be provided, which is a key usage constraint. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_task_details for task specifics), nor does it mention exclusions.

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