read_user_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the source (CLI command), the channel (reciprocal to diary), and return ordering ('Returns oldest first'). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects or what happens when no notes exist, leaving minor gaps in 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?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and includes valuable context (source, distinction from sibling, use case, ordering). It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence contributes meaningful information, so it earns a 4.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the origin of notes, how they differ from diary entries, when to use the tool, and the return order. No significant gaps remain.

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 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, including its range and default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool reads notes left by the operator, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('notes the operator has left for you in this project'). It also distinguishes itself from welfare_reflect, making its purpose unambiguous and differentiated from a sibling tool.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with welfare_reflect ('Different from welfare_reflect...') and provides a concrete use case ('Useful at session start'). This tells the agent when to use this tool versus an alternative, satisfying the highest bar for usage guidance.

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