consulter_notes

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

The description discloses the core read behavior ("Récupère") and the target resource, which is adequate for a simple retrieval. However, with no annotations present, it does not describe output format, error behavior, or access requirements, leaving meaningful gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly more informative, but it is efficient and directly states the core purpose.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description plus schema covers the main invocation path. However, there is no output schema and no description of the returned shape or limits, so completeness 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 100%, so the parameter is already documented in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ("Récupère") and a precise resource ("les notes d'un élève"), clearly identifying both the action and the object. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings such as consulter_devoirs and consulter_absences by resource type.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it state any exclusion conditions. The only indication is the resource name itself, which is implicit rather than explicit routing.

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