td_annotations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by explaining that notes are returned with the nodes their boxes cover and that membership is geometric based on tile centers. The read-only nature is implied by 'Read,' but it stops short of stating permission needs or any error/edge-case behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds usage guidance and a subtle geometric nuance. Each paragraph earns its place: what the tool does, when to use it, and what the returned node list actually means. No filler or repetition.

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?

The behavioral and output aspects are well covered, and the output schema exists, so return structure is not the issue. However, the two parameters are entirely undocumented: the agent can call with defaults but cannot reason about non-default path or depth values. That is a significant gap for a tool meant to be invoked, not just understood at a high level.

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%, and the description never explains what 'path' or 'depth' mean, nor what effect they have on the results. The defaults /project1 and 8 are present, but the agent has no way to know how to intentionally target another network or adjust depth.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Read the notes in a network.' It also clarifies scope ('including the ones a person left for you') and establishes differentiation by noting these notes are 'completely invisible to every other tool here,' so an agent can clearly tell this from siblings like td_annotate or project readers.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Check this before building in a project you did not build.' It also tells the agent not to expect annotations to appear as errors, parameters, or names in other tools, effectively providing a when-not-elsewhere rule and preventing fruitless searches through siblings.

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