find_notes

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read. The description adds that it surfaces preferences/plugin notes as inputs to later tasks, but says nothing about return format, matching behavior, or how topic/search/subject combine to filter. With annotations covering safety, this is an added-context-only score of 3.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the usage hint. No filler or repetition; only slightly terse given the undocumented parameters.

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 and low parameter documentation mean the description must carry more, but it leaves 'subject' undefined and gives no sense of what a recall returns or how results are ranked/filtered. Adequate for a simple read tool, but with clear 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 only 33% – 'search' is documented in-schema but 'topic' and 'subject' are not. The description only obliquely touches two topic values ('preferences', 'plugin') and never explains what 'subject' means or how it differs from 'search'. It does not compensate for the low 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Recalls saved notes.' The mention of 'preferences and plugin notes' clarifies the domain (user notes, not MIDI/instrument notes). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_instrument_notes or get_midi_notes, so it stops short of a 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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use: 'Check for the user's preferences and plugin notes before designing sounds or mixing.' This establishes a workflow trigger. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. save_note/delete_note), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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