research_add_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a note or finding' and gives no detail on side effects (e.g., whether it appends, overwrites, requires an existing session, or returns any confirmation). This is minimal and leaves important behavior unspecified.

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, short sentence with no filler. It is concise and to the point, though it could arguably provide a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the effect of adding a note (e.g., appended vs. replaced), what the return value might be, or where the session ID comes from. This leaves the agent with uncertainty about how to correctly use the 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description does not add any semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline score.

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 (add) and the object (a note or finding to the research session). It is specific enough to understand the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like research_update_section.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., the session must exist) or when a sibling tool like research_update_section would be more appropriate. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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