Get asset notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces 'Read-only.' Beyond that it adds genuinely useful behavior: ordering ('newest last') and the empty-list case when an asset was never annotated, which prevents an agent from misreading an empty result as an error.

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?

Front-loaded with the substantive definition, followed by short Args/Returns blocks. The Returns block largely restates the existing output schema, which is mild redundancy, but it is brief and easy to scan.

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 one required parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: what is returned, the ordering, and the empty case. It omits nothing critical, though a note on result limits or how notes are produced would close the last gap.

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 single asset_id parameter has zero schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It only restates 'The asset to read,' adding no format, prefix, or example — minimal but not misleading, so a 3 is fair for one trivially named parameter.

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 and resource — read the plugin's notes (review verdicts and recorded actions) on one asset. The singular scope quietly separates it from the bulk sibling get_assets_notes, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the content ('past review verdicts with reasons and recorded actions'), so an agent can infer this follows review_assets/record_action. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no pointer to get_assets_notes for multiple assets, and no mention of clear_asset_notes as the destructive counterpart.

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