Analyze note tags

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool demonstrates 'MCP progress notifications and cancellation', which is a behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide. This gives the agent awareness of progress feedback and abort capability. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it combines two distinct purposes: the core functionality and a demonstration of MCP features. Separating these would improve clarity. Nonetheless, it is efficiently short.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (reducing the burden), the description is minimal. It does not explain the scope (e.g., all notes or user's notes) or the output format. While the core action is clear, more context would help, such as mentioning that it aggregates across the entire workspace.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description has no need to explain parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not add or miss anything significant here.

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 core action: 'Count notes by tag', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_notes' and 'summarize_note' by implying aggregation. However, the secondary clause 'while demonstrating MCP progress notifications and cancellation' introduces a meta-purpose that could confuse an AI agent about the primary function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not compare to 'list_notes' or 'summarize_note' or state that this tool is best for getting a tag-based summary. The description only states what the tool does, which leaves the agent without decision-making context.

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