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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic creation action without disclosing side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. This places full burden on the description, which is insufficiently 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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core function and the special behavior of is_task.

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 the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely adequate. It covers the primary action and the conditional task creation, though it does not mention potential errors or specific return behavior, which the output schema likely handles.

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 has no descriptions for any parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the is_task parameter by explaining that setting it to True creates a pending task, but it does not elaborate on title or content beyond their obvious names.

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?

Clearly states the action (create) and resource (note), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the optional task creation when is_task=True. This unequivocally identifies the tool's purpose among list, read, mark_done, and delete.

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 this is for creating a new note or pending task, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The purpose is self-evident, but lacks explicit guidance on excluding other operations.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'permanentemente' (permanently), which is a key destructive trait. However, it omits details about error handling, idempotency, or side effects on related data, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no wasted words.

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 delete tool with one parameter and an existing output schema (likely covering return values), the description is adequate. It covers the core operation and permanence, though it lacks explicit error behavior or conditions, which are minor for this simplicity.

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 compensate. It clarifies that the slug parameter identifies the note to delete, adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. It does not describe slug format, but the basic semantic is clear.

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 action (delete), the resource (note), and the method (by slug). It differentiates from siblings like create, list, read, and mark_done by being the delete operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as mark_done for non-destructive updates. The description gives no context on prerequisites or when deletion is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that the tool lists notes, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly say that it does not modify data or that it has no side effects. For a list operation, this is a minor omission, earning a mid-range score.

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 clearly conveys the tool's purpose and output. It contains no unnecessary words or redundant details, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 description specifies what the output includes (title and status), which is useful for an agent. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or filtering, but since no parameters exist, these are likely not applicable. The description is sufficient for a simple list operation, though it could be slightly more explicit about the full output shape.

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 has no parameters (coverage 100%), so there is nothing to document. The description does not add any parameter information because none exist. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high 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 clearly states the action: 'Lista todas as notas e tarefas salvas' (lists all saved notes and tasks) and specifies the output fields ('com título e status' - with title and status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note, read_note, mark_done, and delete_note, as it is the only listing operation.

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 makes it clear that the tool is for listing all notes and tasks, which implies it should be used when a complete collection is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is straightforward and context is sufficiently clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the primary effect (status becomes 'done') but does not mention error handling, reversibility, or side effects. It is minimally transparent but not comprehensive.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and effect with no wasted words. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly: it does not explain the required 'slug' parameter, nor does it provide usage context or error expectations. Even though an output schema exists, the missing parameter documentation is a significant gap.

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 provides no description for the 'slug' parameter (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain it either. The description adds zero meaning to the parameter, leaving the agent to guess what 'slug' refers to.

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 action ('Marca uma tarefa como concluída') and the resulting state ('status vira done'), making it unambiguous what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create/list/read/delete) by indicating a status-update operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not the context or conditions under which it should be invoked, and no alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action and does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, errors, or rate limits. 'Read' implies non-destructive behavior, but that is not explicit.

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 redundant wording. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently.

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 read operation, the description covers the core purpose and input. It does not mention output format or error cases, but given the availability of an output schema (not shown) and the simplicity of the tool, it is minimally adequate.

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 provides no description for 'slug', and the tool description only says 'by slug' without explaining what a slug is, its format, or whether it is a unique identifier. This leaves the parameter meaning partially inferred.

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 ('read'), specifies the resource ('note'), and mentions the lookup key ('slug'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note or list_notes.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but the description implies using this tool when the full body of a specific note is needed, as opposed to listing notes or performing mutations.

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