get_annotations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get') without revealing side effects, read-only nature, permissions, or response format. Moreover, the description says 'current document' while the input schema requires 'nodeId', creating ambiguity about how document-level retrieval works, which is a transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the primary action and scope with no filler words. It is appropriately concise and earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only two simple parameters, the description is still incomplete. It fails to explain the relationship between nodeId and document-level retrieval, leaves the behavior of includeCategories unmentioned, and does not indicate what the return value contains. The tool is simple, but the description leaves critical ambiguities unresolved.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description attempts to add the 'current document or specific node' concept, but this conflicts with the schema's required 'nodeId'. It does not clarify how to request document-level annotations (e.g., a special nodeId value), and it says nothing about 'includeCategories', leaving parameter semantics less clear than the schema alone.

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 ('Get all annotations') and specifies the scope ('current document or specific node'), which distinguishes it from write tools like set_annotation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other getter tools (e.g., get_document_info, get_node_info), so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage: you would use this when you need to retrieve annotations, either document-wide or for a specific node. However, it provides no explicit exclusions, alternatives, or conditions (e.g., when to use set_annotation instead), leaving the 'when vs. alternatives' guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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