goodnotes_read_handwriting

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

The description earns credit for explaining why the tool is not read-only despite reading: it drives the native conversion preview and then cancels, leaving the document unchanged. That is real context beyond the annotations. It still omits what UI state is touched, whether the preview must be on-screen, and any latency or failure 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the non-destructive caveat; no filler. Slight loss for the scope caveat arriving last rather than being folded into the first sentence.

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 3-parameter, nested-object tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the agent is left guessing the coordinate system, what viewId refers to, and what the read returns (text? strokes? confidence?). Only the region concept and the non-destructiveness are covered, so it is thin relative to the tool's complexity.

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, and it only partly does: 'visible rectangular region' gives meaning to the region object but not to its fractional x/y/width/height bounds, and viewId (a uuid) and language are never mentioned.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Read real ink strokes in a visible rectangular region.' It also separates itself from the converting sibling by noting it uses the native conversion preview and cancels, and that background images/PDF text are out of scope. It stops short of naming the alternative tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 'visible rectangular region' and 'background images/PDF text are not native ink' clauses imply the conditions under which this tool works, and 'does not replace the handwriting' hints at when to pick it over a real conversion. But no sibling is named and no explicit when-not routing is given (e.g. 'to persist a converted note, use goodnotes_convert_handwriting').

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