get_note_marks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; 读取 implies a read-only operation and the mark contents hint at the return payload. But there is no statement about permissions, pagination, ordering, or what happens when a note has no marks — gaps a no-annotation tool should cover.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the purpose and appends the anti-confusion caveat about Timeline. No filler, though the two clauses could be split more cleanly.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and sibling differentiation but leaves the caller guessing about the shape of the returned marks and the note_id contract. Adequate but with evident gaps.

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 is the only source of meaning, and it says nothing about note_id (format, where to obtain it, valid range). It only implicitly justifies the parameter by saying marks belong to a note.

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 (读取) and resource (笔记标记), and clarifies what a mark includes (文字标记、照片). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_note_timeline, so an agent can tell which one to pick without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says this is independent of Timeline and that the timeline is not a substitute — a clear when/when-not signal against a specific sibling. It does not, however, address other adjacent readers such as get_note_attachments or get_note_original.

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