onenote_hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no safety warnings are needed. The description adds behavioral detail about how different scopes affect the output granularity (notebooks vs. sections vs. full tree with page IDs), which goes beyond annotation defaults.

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 the main purpose, no filler. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does; the second sentence provides action-oriented guidance on parameter usage. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns. It covers what is returned (notebooks through pages with IDs) and the effect of the scope parameter. It omits pagination/ordering details, but for a simple listing tool with read-only annotations, this is adequate.

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% (both scope and start_id have descriptions). The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the practical use case for each scope (e.g., 'sections' to find IDs for page creation), which is not in the schema and helps the agent decide which parameter value to use.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly defines the resource ('OneNote hierarchy') including the exact components (notebooks, section groups, sections, pages) with their IDs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like onenote_search or onenote_get_page, which operate on specific items.

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 explicit context for each scope value: 'notebooks' for quick overview, 'sections' for finding section IDs for page creation, 'pages' for the full tree. It does not explicitly compare to alternative tools (e.g., when to use search instead), but provides strong situational guidance.

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