goodnotes_text_box_style_info

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses a real behavioral trait: a capability-gated failure mode where it returns supported:false and performs no write when the native whiteboard menu lacks text-box styling. It also flags that the returned styleId is short-lived and guarded, which is important timing/validity context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two outcome branches. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 probe with no output schema, describing both return branches (supported:false path and the settings-plus-styleId path) is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that the shape of "settings" and the lifespan/scope of the guarded styleId are left vague.

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 single required parameter selectionId has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, so nothing clarifies what a selection handle is or how to obtain one. With coverage this low the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 specific verb and resource ("Probe selected text-box styling") and implicitly contrasts with its write counterpart goodnotes_set_text_box_style by being a read-only probe. It never names a sibling outright, so the differentiation rests on the name/info-vs-set convention rather than explicit text.

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?

Use is implied — probe first, and if supported:false is returned the caller should not proceed; the short-lived styleId clearly feeds a subsequent set-style call. However, no alternative is named and there is no explicit when/when-not statement, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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