goodnotes_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that no screenshot is captured by default — but leaves unexplained what "prepare a view" produces, whether any server-side state persists after opening, and what the openWorld network fetch implies. Since the schema exposes no screenshot toggle, the "by default" phrasing is also left dangling.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of ambiguity, but nothing is wasteful.

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 read-only tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what an agent gets back after "prepare a view" — a handle, a session token, a rendered page list? Without that, an agent cannot plan follow-up calls confidently.

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 carries the burden for the single url parameter. It does add meaning by constraining the value to an existing Goodnotes Web document URL rather than an arbitrary URI, which goes beyond format:uri. However, it gives no detail on URL shape, whether share links work, or what happens on an invalid/expired URL.

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 pairs a concrete verb ("Open") with a concrete resource ("an existing Goodnotes Web document URL") and states the outcome ("prepare a view"). The phrase "prepare a view" is vague about what a view actually is, and no sibling tool is named, but an agent can still tell this is a read/inspect entry point rather than a create or export operation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (auth, session state), and no routing to alternatives such as goodnotes_list or goodnotes_export. The only contextual cue is "No screenshot by default", which hints at output behavior rather than selection criteria.

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