notory_get

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 explicitly labels the operation as 'read-only', which is a critical safety trait. It also discloses that paths are rooted at the host and shows how to include resource IDs. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not cover all edge cases like error handling or rate limits.

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 long, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It efficiently packs essential information: the read-only nature, path anchoring, examples, and query parameter guidance. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (generic GET, two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key operational details: what it does, how to construct paths, and how to pass queries. It does not explicitly address when to use this over specific siblings, but for a generic tool with minimal complexity, it is largely complete.

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 50% (path has a description, query does not). The description compensates by explaining that 'path' is rooted at the host, providing examples including an ID form, and clarifying that 'query' is for query parameters. This adds practical meaning beyond the raw schema, particularly for the otherwise undocumented 'query' 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 verb 'GET' and the resource 'any Notory endpoint', explicitly labeling it as read-only. It provides concrete path examples ('/api/v1/assets' or '/api/v1/assets/{id}'), making the tool's scope unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notory_get_asset, which target a specific endpoint.

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 implies this is the generic fallback for any Notory endpoint, contrasting with the more specific sibling tools. It explains how to construct paths and pass query parameters, giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusions.

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