Notes Read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the per-view output contents, the max-8-bars limit on 'roll', and how offsets and the track offset are surfaced. It still omits explicit confirmation that it is non-mutating and says nothing about error or empty-range behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the view taxonomy. Three dense sentences with no filler, though the view enumeration is compact to the point of being terse.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the view descriptions cover output shape well. Still, for a 5-param tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the silence on 'step' and 'project' leaves an agent with an incomplete picture.

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 thoroughly explains 'view' (all three modes) and clarifies 'bars' semantics, but leaves 'step' (default 0.25) and 'project' entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so it only partially fills the gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('a track's notes'), and scope ('bars [a, b] (inclusive)'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like notes_write, notes_clear, notes_copy, and analyze_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?

The description routes among the three view modes and hints that 'rel' exists for a copy/edit/write-back workflow with notes_write, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over analytical siblings (analyze_notes, track_model, analyze_roll) or any when-not conditions.

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