td_component_notes

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

The description discloses storage behavior (external JSON by default, optional embed which writes a hidden Text DAT and notes the trade-off of bloated save files). Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructive nature; description adds concrete details on side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines purpose and content, second explains storage options.

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 full schema coverage, presence of output schema, and description covering actions and storage trade-offs, the tool definition is complete for an agent to use correctly. No obvious gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the embed parameter's effect (writes hidden Text DAT for portability) and default external storage, but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what schema already provides.

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 explicitly states it's for per-COMP markdown notes (what the subnet does, gotchas, TODOs). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on note-taking, unlike other tools for memory, patching, etc.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, no sibling tool serves a similar function, so usage is implied but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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