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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly discloses permanent deletion and irreversibility. Lacks details on authorization or error handling, but the destructive nature is well communicated.

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?

Two sentences, highly efficient. First sentence states the action, second sentence adds warning and usage hint. No unnecessary 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key warnings. Could mention what happens on success (e.g., deletion confirmation) but is still sufficient for a simple bulk-deletion tool.

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 has 100% coverage and already describes noteIds as an array of ULID strings with max 50 items. Description adds practical guidance to use notlai_list_notes to find IDs, which is helpful for correct usage.

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 'permanently delete multiple notes at once,' specifying the verb (delete), resource (notes), and scope (multiple/bulk). Distinguishes from the sibling tool notlai_delete_note which deletes a single note.

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 a strong warning that the action cannot be undone and explicitly suggests using notlai_list_notes to find note IDs. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the warning implies caution.

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 carries full burden. It only states the basic action and lacks details on constraints (e.g., uniqueness, permissions, error handling) or side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, no redundant 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 single-parameter create tool, the description covers the basic usage and follow-up step. However, it omits details on return values, error conditions, and prerequisites (e.g., authentication).

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 100% and the schema already well-documents the 'name' parameter with length constraints and example values. The description adds no additional parameter meaning.

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 ('create') and resource ('folder') with a specific purpose ('to organize your notes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like notlai_delete_folder and notlai_list_folders.

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 a usage hint: after creating, use notlai_move_note to move notes. It implies context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool comparisons.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions Markdown support, which is already detailed in the input schema. It lacks information about authentication, idempotency, side effects (e.g., whether a note ID is returned), or rate limits.

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 long, with no redundant information. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides a useful usage hint. Every sentence is justified.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain the return value (e.g., note ID), authentication prerequisites, or error handling. However, it does cover the main purpose and provides a workflow hint.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value only for the 'tags' parameter by suggesting a workflow (use notlai_list_tags), but does not enhance understanding of other parameters like 'isFavorite' or 'content' beyond what is already in the schema.

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 'Create a new note', specifying the verb and resource. It also mentions Markdown formatting support and suggests using notlai_list_tags for tag assignment, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like notlai_update_note or notlai_delete_note.

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 explicit guidance to 'consider using notlai_list_tags to find relevant tags to assign' before creating a note. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to alternatives like notlai_update_note.

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 disclose behaviors. It mentions tag names are stored in lowercase, which is good. However, it does not describe what happens if a duplicate is created (e.g., error or silent overwrite), nor does it mention any destructive actions (though creating is not destructive). More detail on error handling would improve transparency.

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 concise sentences. It front-loads the action and purpose, then provides a usage advisory. Every sentence carries meaningful information without redundancy.

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 create tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter behavior, and a usage best practice. It does not specify success response or common errors, but for a straightforward operation, it is largely 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 covers the single parameter with examples and constraints (maxLength, minLength). The description adds the lowercase storage behavior but largely reiterates schema content. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 creates a tag for categorizing notes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like notlai_list_tags and notlai_delete_tag by specifying creation action. The note categorization context provides a clear purpose.

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 explicitly advises checking existing tags first with notlai_list_tags to avoid duplicates, providing a clear usage guideline. While it does not mention when not to use it, the advisory is sufficient for a simple create tool.

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 provided, the description fully explains the key behavior: notes are moved to the root and not deleted. This prevents the agent from assuming notes are lost. It does not mention whether the folder must be empty, but that is implied by the move behavior. No contradictions with any annotations (none present).

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?

Two sentences: first defines the action, second explains the consequence and provides a reference tool. Perfectly concise with no redundant 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 single-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what happens to contents, how to obtain the ID, and the core action. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% coverage with a description for folderId. The tool description additionally reinforces the source of the ID (from notlai_list_folders) and the ID format (ULID), adding value beyond the schema alone.

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 a folder by ID), explains the side effect (notes moved to root, not deleted), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning folder-specific behavior. It also references a sibling tool (notlai_list_folders) for obtaining IDs.

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 advises using notlai_list_folders to get folder IDs, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool (e.g., if notes should be permanently deleted instead), nor does it mention prerequisites like permissions. Still, it provides clear context for its primary use.

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?

Discloses permanent deletion and irreversibility, which is the key behavioral trait. No annotations are provided, so description carries burden; lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error conditions.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. Every word 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?

Adequately describes the operation and key constraint (irreversible). Missing return value or error handling details, but acceptable for a simple delete with no output schema.

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 100% with clear parameter description. Tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what 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?

Clearly states verb 'delete' and resource 'note', specifies permanence and deletion by ID. Distinguishes from siblings like `bulk_delete_notes` (bulk) and `move_note` (move).

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?

Implies usage for single note deletion by ID and warns of irreversibility, but does not explicitly differentiate from `bulk_delete_notes` or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the critical behavioral trait that deleting a tag removes it from all notes. This is a significant side effect beyond a simple deletion, and it is clearly stated. No mention of authorization or reversibility, but adequate for a simple tool.

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 concise with two economically structured sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and side effect, and the second provides a usage hint. No extraneous content, front-loaded with critical 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, side effect, and how to obtain the input. It is fully complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and already includes the ULID format and sourcing hint. The tool description repeats this information but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'tag by ID', and explains the important side effect of removing the tag from all notes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like notlai_create_tag and notlai_list_tags.

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 explicitly mentions 'Use notlai_list_tags to see available tags and their IDs', providing clear guidance on how to obtain the required parameter. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear for a deletion scenario.

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 carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation but does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior (e.g., missing note), rate limits, or what 'full content' includes. The behavioral disclosure is superficial.

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 sentence of 12 words with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 get operation with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not specify the return format or what fields constitute 'full content', which could require supplementary documentation.

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 100% and the schema's description for noteId already includes format and source (ULID, from notlai_list_notes). The tool description adds no additional meaning; thus baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full content of a specific note by its ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like notlai_list_notes (which lists metadata) and notlai_update_note/notlai_delete_note by specifying it retrieves the full content of a single note.

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 implies usage when full note content is needed but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., notlai_list_notes for metadata) nor when not to use. It provides minimal guidance.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that results are ordered most recent first, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, or any rate limits. Behavioral transparency 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?

Two concise sentences with essential information front-loaded. No unnecessary words or redundancy. Efficiently communicates purpose and key behavior.

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 only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for selection: it covers what data is returned and ordering. However, it could mention if there are any time constraints or pagination details. Overall, highly useful for a straightforward activity tool.

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 100%, and schema descriptions for both parameters (noteId as ULID, limit with default) are clear. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema baseline, so score is 3.

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 activity history of a note, specifying the details it returns (who, what, when, which AI) and the order (most recent first). It distinguishes itself from sibling note tools by focusing on activity.

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 implies usage for viewing note activity but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_note for content, list_notes for overview). No exclusions or context about prerequisites.

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. Description states read-only list operation. No mention of pagination, ordering, or return format. Adequate but minimal for a simple list tool.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states core purpose; second adds relevant context. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Tool is simple; description adequately covers listing folders and hints at folder ID usage. Lacks details on return structure or pagination, but sufficient for basic use.

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?

No parameters; schema coverage 100%. By baseline (0 params = 4), description adds no parameter info but that's acceptable as none needed.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List all your folders.' Distinct from sibling folder tools (create, delete). Additional context about using folder IDs for filtering or moving notes adds purpose clarity.

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?

Implied usage: listing folders. No explicit when-to-use or when-not, nor comparison to alternatives like list_notes or list_tags. Basic guidance only.

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 bears full burden. It discloses the listing scope ('your notes'), filtering capabilities, and sort order (most recently updated first). It does not mention authorization requirements or rate limits, but the read-only nature is implied.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second adds key details (filtering and sort order). Everything 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?

The description covers filtering and sorting but omits pagination details (default limit, cursor usage) and return format. With no output schema, more context on response structure would be helpful.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., default limit, enum values are in schema).

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 lists notes, specifies filtering options (tags, date range, text search, favorites), and indicates sort order. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notlai_get_note (single note) and notlai_create_note.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It implies listing multiple notes but lacks guidance like 'use notlai_get_note for a single note by ID'.

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?

Describes the basic function (list tags with IDs) but with no annotations, doesn't disclose additional behavior like auth requirements or pagination. Adequate for a simple read operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, no superfluous 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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and a simple task, the description provides all necessary context: what, when, and how to use the results.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 tool lists all existing tags with their IDs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_tag or delete_tag.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool before creating or updating a note to find relevant tags, and explains how to use the tags in creation. Lacks guidance on when not to use it.

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 disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions obtaining access tokens but omits important details like token lifetime, storage requirements, or whether the tool is safe (e.g., no destructive actions). The description is insufficient for an authentication tool.

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 sentence of 10 words, highly concise with no wasted text. It front-loads the core action and resource.

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 login tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks completeness regarding the token output and any side effects. Given the context, a score of 3 is reasonable.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('Your email address', 'Your password'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 authenticates with email and password to obtain access tokens. The verb 'authenticate' and resource 'access tokens' are specific. It differentiates from siblings like 'notlai_register' (account creation) and 'notlai_logout' (session termination).

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 implies usage for obtaining tokens but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'notlai_register' or 'notlai_web_login'. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 fully disclose behavior. It clearly states the tool deletes local credentials and ends the session, which is accurate and transparent. However, it could mention that this makes further authenticated requests fail without re-login, but the core action is well described.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the entire purpose without any superfluous text. Every word 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 the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers the action and effect. A minor improvement would be to mention that the session is immediately invalidated, but it is still 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details. A score of 4 is appropriate as per the guideline (0 params = baseline 4).

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's action: 'Delete local credentials and end the session.' It uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('local credentials'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'notlai_login' and 'notlai_register' which handle authentication setup.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. It is implied that logout ends a session, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., being logged in) or consequences (e.g., subsequent API calls requiring re-login). No alternatives are discussed.

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 exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions moving into a folder or root but does not detail side effects (e.g., changes to note metadata, permissions, or undo behavior). The move operation is inherently non-destructive, but more disclosure would improve transparency.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action and providing usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no 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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential use case and gives a practical tip for parameter preparation. It could mention result details (e.g., whether the note object is returned) but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the folderId's null option ('back to root') and directing to notlai_list_folders for IDs, which is valuable beyond the schema's type-only descriptions.

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: moving a note into a folder or back to root. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like notlai_create_note or notlai_delete_note by specifying the exact operation and target, including the null case for moving to root.

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?

It explicitly ties the tool to reclassification and organization, and advises using notlai_list_folders to find folder IDs. This provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or set negative examples.

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 carries the full burden. It only states 'Create' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., auto-login), authentication needs, or error behaviors.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Lacks details about return values, success/error handling, or post-account creation flow. Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is critically incomplete.

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 100%, providing description for both parameters (email, password). The tool description merely echoes these, adding no further semantic value.

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 'Create a new Notlai account' with a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like notlai_login and notlai_logout.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., notlai_login for existing accounts). The description lacks context about prerequisites or intended use cases.

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?

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that public links are read-only and that the permission parameter is ignored for public links. However, it does not describe other behavioral aspects like idempotency, effects on existing shares, or return values.

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, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 share tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the two main use cases and parameter roles. It could mention the return format (e.g., link for public share) but is otherwise complete for practical use.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral difference when `email` is present vs. absent and that `permission` is ignored for public links. This goes beyond the schema's attribute descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Share a note' and distinguishes two distinct modes: public link (without email) and user share (with email). This clearly identifies the tool's action and differentiates it from siblings like `notlai_unshare_note` or `notlai_create_note`.

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 clear guidance on when to use each mode: without email for a public read-only link, with email for user-specific sharing with a permission level. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for typical usage.

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 fully disclose behavior. It mentions token refresh as a side effect, but does not explain conditions for refresh, failure modes, or whether user interaction is required. This leaves significant gaps.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains only necessary information. Every word adds value.

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?

Despite simplicity, the description does not specify the output format (e.g., returns status object or boolean). With no output schema, additional detail would improve completeness for an agent.

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 has no parameters, resulting in 100% schema description coverage. Per guidelines, baseline is 4; the description adds no extra param info but none is needed.

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 checks authentication status and optionally refreshes the token. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notlai_login (authentication) and notlai_logout (session termination).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as notlai_login or a separate refresh tool. The name implies it should be used to verify current auth state, but no when-not or context is provided.

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?

Without annotations, the description reveals the destructive action (revoke) but lacks details on prerequisites, permissions, or consequences such as immediacy or irreversibility.

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?

Two sentences, front-loads the key action, and eliminates unnecessary 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?

Adequate for a simple revoke action with parameter guidance, but could mention irreversibility or immediate effect given no output schema.

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 descriptions cover all parameters at 100%, and the description adds meaningful behavior context (public link vs specific user) beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Revoke a share' and differentiates between two clear cases (with/without email), distinguishing it from sibling tool 'notlai_share_note'.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use each variant (public link vs specific user), but does not state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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, description carries burden. It explains partial update ('Only provided fields will be changed'), Markdown support, and tag replacement. Missing details on authorization, error handling, or what happens on invalid noteId.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, partial update behavior, usage hint. No extraneous information. Well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

No output schema, so description should mention return value (e.g., success indicator or updated note). Does not cover that. Also lacks differentiation from move_note for folder changes. Adequate but could be more 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?

Schema coverage 100%, baseline 3. Description adds some value for tags ('Pass [] to remove all tags') but largely restates schema. No additional constraint details beyond schema.

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?

Clear verb 'Update' and resource 'existing note'. Distinguishes from siblings like create_note and delete_note. Adds detail on partial update behavior.

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?

Suggests using notlai_list_notes to find note ID, but does not clarify when to use this tool versus notlai_move_note for folder changes. No explicit exclusions or alternative tools guidance.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a local auth server is opened and a URL is provided, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., server lifecycle, browser interaction), required permissions, or what happens to authentication state.

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 sentence containing all essential information with no extraneous words. Every phrase adds value.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description covers the basic action but lacks context about return values, error scenarios, or how the URL is delivered. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps.

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 100% and the description adds the default value ('default: 9876') beyond the schema's description ('Local server port'), providing practical guidance for the optional parameter.

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 ('start'), resource ('web-based login flow'), and explicitly mentions opening a local auth server and providing a URL, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'notlai_login' (presumably non-web) and 'notlai_logout'.

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 implies use for web-based authentication compared to other login methods, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like 'notlai_login' or provide context like prerequisites or when not to use it.

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