Get note.com authentication status

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 does disclose a behavioral trait: a read-only check for the presence of a cookie from env or config. However, it omits details about return value, whether it performs network calls, or how it treats missing cookies. For a simple 0-param tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 fully conveys the tool's core function without any redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a 0-parameter tool 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete but has gaps. It lacks explanation of the return value or status representation, which would be useful for an agent invoking the tool. It also does not clarify the relationship to the sibling `note_auth_check`, leaving potential ambiguity in tool selection.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none. It correctly focuses on behavior, and the empty input schema is self-explanatory.

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 purpose: checking whether note-mcp-community has a note.com cookie from env or config file. It uses a specific verb ('Checks whether') and resource (cookie presence), which distinguishes it from writing/auth-related siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named `note_auth_check` sibling, so it misses the full 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `note_auth_check` or `note_auth_login`. It implies it is a status check but gives no context on when to prefer it over similar auth-related tools. No exclusions or alternative references are present.

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