get_item_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that content is converted from HTML to plain text, which is a notable behavioral trait. However, it doesn't specify the return structure, error cases, or whether notes are sorted, leaving some gaps. The conversion detail adds value beyond basics.

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 concise, two sentences, with no fluff. It front-loads the primary function of getting child notes, then clarifies the standalone note case and the conversion behavior. Each sentence adds value, fitting within typical token limits.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what it does, the special case, and a key transformation. It lacks details on return format, but given the simplicity, it is fairly complete. The conversion to plain text is a useful addition.

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 0%, meaning the description must explain the item_key parameter. The description does not elaborate on the parameter format or special cases beyond the fact that it can be a standalone note's key. This adds some meaning but is minimal, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: it retrieves notes attached to an item, and also handles standalone notes. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource 'item notes'. It distinguishes between two cases, which helps clarify its purpose, though it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool: when you need notes attached to an item or the content of a standalone note. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of retrieving notes is clear, and siblings like get_item_annotations are distinct enough.

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