Read stickies

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 does reveal that only 'active' stickies are returned and that results are ordered by importance, which is useful filtering behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (beyond the verb 'Retrieve'), nor does it explain what 'active' means or how 'relevance' is determined.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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 read tool with well-documented schema and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the essential purpose and key behavioral traits. However, it could be slightly more complete by clarifying what 'active' means or what the response looks like, but the core functionality is adequately conveyed.

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 all parameters (limit, project_path, include_global, min_importance) are already documented in the schema. The description adds a small semantic link by mentioning 'ordered by importance,' which relates to min_importance, but it does not significantly enhance understanding 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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('active stickies'), the scope ('current session'), and the ordering ('by importance'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stickies_write and stickies_dismiss, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to retrieve active stickies relevant to the current session, with a specific ordering. It implies use for reading existing stickies rather than creating or dismissing them, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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