goodnotes_object_options

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, yet the description frames the tool as "Read" of supported commands, giving no hint of any side effect an agent should expect. It also omits what happens with a stale or non-current selectionId, whether the call touches live document state, and what the response contains — all gaps the annotations do not close. This is a tension rather than a direct negation of the annotations, since readOnlyHint=false can simply mean read-only is not guaranteed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumerated option categories are the most useful part and come first. Slightly compressed wording ("commands") leaves the nature of the returned options implicit.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what "supported ... commands" look like when returned (per-category capability flags? per-object applicability?), and it does not. Combined with an unexplained non-read-only annotation and an undocumented parameter source, an agent has to guess at both the call contract and the result shape.

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?

The schema has one parameter (selectionId) at 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the load. "The exact current selection" adds real meaning — the ID must refer to a live, exact selection rather than an arbitrary object — but it does not say where the ID comes from (presumably a select tool) or how failures on stale IDs manifest.

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?

"Read supported front/back, lock, collapse and author-display commands" gives a specific verb and a clearly enumerated resource, and ties it to "the exact current selection," which separates it from mutating siblings like goodnotes_arrange_object or goodnotes_unlock_object. It stops short of saying explicitly that it is a capability/options query rather than a command executor, so the boundary with goodnotes_object_colors or goodnotes_recall_object is only inferable.

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 — the word "supported" suggests calling this to discover which commands may be issued against a selection before invoking a mutating sibling — but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or which sibling to use instead. No preconditions (e.g., a live selection must already exist) are given.

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