Page Index

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses offline versus online behavior, Graph cost, and that sync/rebuild can take minutes. It does not discuss staleness, cache lifecycle, or rebuild effects in depth, but the core behavioral profile is communicated clearly.

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 two sentences with the core mechanism and value proposition front-loaded, followed by a cost/usage caveat. There is no filler, no restating of schema content, and every clause earns its place.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost model, and mode selection well. It lacks explicit guidance against sibling search_pages and does not explain rebuildSkeleton behavior, but the schema supplies mode details, so it is mostly complete.

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 already describes all seven parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a practical hint that `sections` can scope sync to avoid long Graph walks, but it does not meaningfully redefine or enrich parameter semantics 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 opens with a specific action and resource: it 'Maintains a local mirror of the OneNote structure (notebook/section/page names and IDs)'. It also distinguishes the tool from online Graph-backed lookup/search by emphasizing offline search and instant results, separating it from siblings like search_pages. The purpose is concrete and not a tautology.

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?

Provides clear context that search and status are offline while sync/rebuild hit Graph, and explicitly recommends to 'prefer sync, and scope it with sections when you know what changed.' It does not name alternative sibling tools or state explicit exclusion cases, but the offline/performance distinction gives practical decision guidance.

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