get_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: per-item status states (ok/unavailable/failed/deferred_budget), content_state, pending_ids, partial, an explicit warning that a successful call does not mean every item was read, budget limits (32000 default/64000 max code points + 1MiB), and the required scope note.batch_detail.v1. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation and densely packed with useful constraints; every clause carries information. It is somewhat run-on and abbreviation-heavy, but appropriately sized for a tool this behaviorally complex.

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?

Covers return semantics (per-item statuses), budget behavior, scope requirement, and the no-auto-concurrency rule even without an output schema or annotations. The residual 20-vs-200 count discrepancy and unexplained meaning of pending_ids/partial keep it from a 5.

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?

At 33% schema coverage the description compensates well: it defines field defaults (content/ref_content/reference), the requirement to explicitly select 'original', the ref_content-vs-content distinction, and max_total_chars default/max with 1MiB nuance. The ids ordering/dedup meaning is added too, though the 20 vs 200 mismatch leaves some ambiguity.

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+resource: batch-reads up to 20 deduplicated personal note IDs while preserving order, which clearly contrasts with the single-item get_note sibling. The '20' cap conflicts with the schema's maxItems=200, slightly muddying precision, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly: '整条超预算按需改用旧get_note' (fall back to get_note when the whole set exceeds budget) and clarifies it does not auto-concurrent 20 calls. Use context is clear; a fuller when-not statement would earn a 5.

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