read_authorship

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the output (authors, ranges, percentages, excerpts) and implies it is read-only. However, it does not mention error cases, permissions, or side effects, which are relevant for transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loading purpose. It is concise but could be slightly more structured by separating the 'what' from the 'when'. Still, it wastes no words.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers what it does and what it returns. It lacks mention of error handling (e.g., note not found), but overall it is complete for a read-only audit tool.

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 has 100% coverage, but the description adds essential meaning: 'Nombre de la nota sin extensión .md' clarifies the format and usage of the 'name' parameter beyond the schema description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool audits authorship of a note, returning a compact summary. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'peek_note' which likely don't offer authorship analysis.

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 description provides context for when to use it ('útil para auditar quién escribió qué cuando la nota se ha ido editando a varias manos'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives. Since no sibling tool overlaps, this is sufficient.

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