goodnotes_batch_help

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context about the tool's lazy-loading purpose and cost avoidance, but it says nothing about the returned payload shape, behavior on unknown or duplicate action types, or the cap of three actions.

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?

A single sentence that leads with what is returned and follows with the rationale for the selective behavior. The trailing cost rationale earns its place by explaining the tool's existence; nothing is padding.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema helper, the description conveys what comes back and why, which is adequate. It falls short on the operational details an agent needs to call it correctly, chiefly the maximum of three action types and how the returned schemas are meant to feed into plan_batch/run_batch.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does clarify the intent of the 'actions' array (request schemas only for these action types), which goes beyond the bare enum list, but it omits the minItems 1 / maxItems 3 limits and says nothing about selecting among the 45 enumerated action types.

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 names a specific action (return detailed batch input schemas) scoped to requested action types, and it explains the design rationale of on-demand schema retrieval. It doesn't name a sibling tool, but the verb+resource combination is precise enough that an agent can distinguish it from the batch runners and the inspection 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'only for the requested action types' tells the caller to pass the actions it needs schemas for, and the cost-saving clause hints at when this beats a full discovery call. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to goodnotes_plan_batch or goodnotes_run_batch, which are the obvious downstream consumers of the returned schemas.

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