aggregate_note

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the query-time nature and counting/summing behavior, but leaves return format and the numeric property trigger unspecified, and omits read-only/safety details.

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 with the scope and resource stated immediately. The additional 'query-time' clause provides useful context without bloat.

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?

With no output schema and no documentation of the filter parameter or grouping output shape, the description is incomplete. The ambiguous 'summing a numeric property' is especially problematic for an agent needing to invoke the tool.

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%, yet the description only vaguely references 'a property' for group_by and omits the filter parameter entirely. The mention of 'optional summing a numeric property' introduces a capability not reflected in the schema, misleading the agent.

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 specific verbs 'Group' and 'counting' to state the aggregation operation on Note objects. It clearly distinguishes from sibling search/get/traverse tools by targeting aggregation specifically.

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 through the aggregation purpose but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The 'Query-time aggregation' clause hints at a differentiation from precomputed data, but there is no direct when-to-use guidance.

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