note_type_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states it lists field names in order and gives an example of the output format. It does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid model_name), but for a simple read-only operation, the behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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: two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is immediately actionable.

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 has an output schema, so explaining return values is not required. The description provides the core purpose and usage context. It could mention that model_names come from list_note_types, but the sibling tool list_note_types is available and the example makes it clear. Overall, it is adequate for the simplicity of the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add meaning to the 'model_name' parameter beyond the schema's title. The example uses 'Basic' but does not explain what model names are valid or how to obtain them (e.g., via list_note_types). The description should compensate for the lack of schema documentation but fails to do so.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('field names of a note type'), includes an example ('Basic -> ['Front', 'Back']'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_note by providing cross-reference.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use this before add_note'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use alternatives, though the instruction is sufficient for the intended use case.

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