notes_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves detailed info, implying a read operation, but does not mention limitations (e.g., behavior on invalid IDs, batch size limits) or confirm it is safe/read-only. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and output scope without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need elaboration. The description covers the key information retrieved (fields, tags, model, cards). It is complete enough for a simple lookup tool, though it could mention the read-only nature explicitly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It specifies that note_ids are for 'specific note IDs', which adds some context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the required format (array of integers) or any constraints, leaving the agent to infer from the schema. The single parameter is partially compensated.

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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: detailed info (fields, tags, model, cards) for specific note IDs. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'cards_info' (which focuses on cards) and 'notes_mod_time' (which only returns modification time).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'cards_info', 'find_notes', or 'notes_mod_time'. It lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context, leaving the agent without decision support.

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