get_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return behavior ('notes text, or a message if no notes exist') but omits edge cases like invalid identifiers or multiple matches. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not made 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 well-structured with clear Args/Returns sections. The sentence about Scrivener inspector notes provides useful context, though it slightly extends beyond pure functional description. Overall efficient and readable.

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 1-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what notes are and what the return value looks like. The only gap is lack of explicit usage differentiation from sibling tools, but the simplicity of the tool reduces the need.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description defines 'identifier' as 'Document title, path, or UUID', adding meaningful semantic content beyond the raw schema. It gives the agent concrete information on acceptable identifier formats.

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 ('Get') and names the exact resource ('document notes (inspector notes)'). It also clarifies that these are inspector notes (author notes, research, reminders), distinguishing this from sibling tools like read_document (body content) and get_synopsis.

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 context about when notes are relevant (inspector panel, author notes, research) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like read_document or get_synopsis. Usage is implied but not directly compared.

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