clikta_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key non-obvious behavior: notes feed the AI guide generator and act like spoken narration. This implies the note is persisted and used as context, which adds transparency beyond a simple 'add note' tool. It doesn't detail return values or side effects, but for a simple note tool this is adequate.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by value and usage guidance. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool does, why it matters, and how often to use it. It covers the essential context (integration with guide generation) without needing to mention return values or edge cases. This is a complete description for the tool's complexity.

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 only defines 'text' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the text should be the user's own explanation of an action. It defines the semantic purpose of the parameter well, though it doesn't specify format or length beyond minLength 1. This is sufficient for a free-text note parameter.

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 tool's function: 'Explain, in your own words, why you just did (or are about to do) something.' It identifies the resource as a note/explanation tool and distinguishes it from the action-oriented sibling tools (navigate, click, type). The purpose is specific and immediately understood.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: after or before performing an action, to explain reasoning. 'Call it liberally' is explicit frequency guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list makes it obvious this is for narration, not actions. Slightly missing an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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