get_annotations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It only states 'get' which implies read-only, but does not confirm the absence of side effects, required permissions, response format, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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 getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it lacks information about the return value structure, error scenarios (e.g., invalid nodeId), or any side effects. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail would be beneficial.

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 describes nodeId as 'Node to get annotations for', and the description adds context by explaining that omitting nodeId gets annotations from the entire document. This adds meaningful usage information beyond the schema, despite the schema having 100% coverage.

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 retrieves all annotations/comments from the document or a specific node. Verb 'Get' and resource 'annotations/comments' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like set_annotation and annotate_* which are for creating/modifying annotations.

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 explains that it can be used for the whole document or a specific node (via the nodeId parameter). However, it does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over other annotation-related tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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