get_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by mapping to POST /note/get and including the tag '[tier: readonly-owner]', which indicates a read-only operation and the owner permission level. This goes beyond a vague 'get' statement and informs the agent that the tool is safe for read operations, though it does not detail error handling or response format.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the API mapping and a tier tag. Each element adds information without redundancy. However, the tier tag '[tier: readonly-owner]' is somewhat cryptic and could be misinterpreted, slightly detracting from ideal clarity. Overall, it is well-structured but not perfectly polished.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it states the operation, the input limit, the HTTP mapping, and the read-only scope. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but for a 'get full records' tool, this is reasonably implied. The description is comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional documentation.

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 only shows a single array parameter 'noteIDs' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the parameter contains note IDs and that it supports 'up to 1000' of them, adding a critical limit and clarifying the intended use of the array. This is meaningful semantic information that the schema does not provide.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get full note records'), the resource ('note records'), and the scope ('for up to 1000 note IDs'). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like 'search_notes' by emphasizing 'full' records and ID-based retrieval, while also providing the mapping to POST /note/get.

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 phrase 'for up to 1000 note IDs' implies that this tool is used when you have specific IDs to fetch, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of search-based alternatives. No alternative tools are mentioned, nor is there a when-not-to-use condition. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it lacks the clarity required for a score of 4 or 5.

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