pbs_group_notes_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly declares the tool as 'READ-ONLY' and notes the adversarial nature of the free text field, but does not detail error behavior, performance implications, or other side effects.

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 extremely concise—three short sentences that deliver key information (purpose, sibling distinction, adversarial hint, config requirement) without any redundant or extraneous content.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to describe return values. It covers the read-only nature, scope (group vs. snapshot), and config requirements. Missing is explicit mention of the write counterpart (pbs_group_notes_set) and a brief note on handling empty/missing notes.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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'), the resource ('full free-text notes body for a backup GROUP'), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling snapshot-level notes tools, leaving no ambiguity.

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 differentiates this tool from pbs_snapshot_notes_set/get, and mentions the configuration prerequisite (PROXIMO_PBS_*). However, it does not explicitly contrast with the write counterpart pbs_group_notes_set or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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