Record notes or questions during a reading session by associating text with a session ID, preserving insights and unresolved points for later review.
Add a note or question to a reading session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| note_type | No | note | |
| target_id | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| target_kind | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only says 'Add a note or question.' It does not mention whether the operation mutates state, whether the reading session must already exist, whether the note is immediately persisted, or what the return behavior is. It is not misleading, but it is very thin.
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 with no filler and the action is front-loaded. It could have added useful parameter context without becoming bloated, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is under-specified. The agent cannot determine what target_id/target_kind mean or how note_type should be used, and the required session_id is only implicitly tied to the phrase 'reading session.' The tool needs more context for reliable invocation.
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 explain session_id, note_type, target_id, or target_kind. 'Note or question' loosely hints at the text content, but it does not clarify how the optional fields control the note's type or target, so it fails to compensate for the low schema 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 states a clear action ('Add') and a specific resource ('a note or question to a reading session'), so an agent knows what the tool accomplishes. It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools such as workspace_record_reading_checkpoint, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like workspace_record_reading_checkpoint, workspace_create_reading_session, or workspace_apply_reading_queue_to_session. There are no exclusions, preferences, or conditions provided, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.