Get Annotations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that only the user's own annotations are returned and that note text and page numbers are included. However, it does not mention pagination, limit behavior, authentication requirements, or error cases, leaving some behavioral gaps for a read tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core function and adds a practical use case in the second sentence, making it efficient 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?

The presence of an output schema covers return-value structure, and the description explains the core purpose well. However, it omits guidance on the limit parameter and does not suggest when to choose this tool over sibling content-retrieval tools, so the overall context is adequate but not thorough.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly explains document_id via 'on a library document'. The limit parameter is entirely unexplained, despite having a default of 50. The description provides some meaning for one parameter but fails to compensate for the total lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies the verb (Get), the resource (annotations on a library document), and the scope (user's own annotations, PDF highlights and sticky notes). It also names specific output elements (note text, pages), and this scope makes it distinct from sibling tools like mendeley_get_document_text or mendeley_get_file_content.

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 a general use case ('surfacing what the user marked as important in a paper') but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It is clear enough for a simple read operation, but lacks explicit routing relative to the many sibling tools.

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