technocore_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states 'FREE, read-only' and 'READ', disclosing the non-mutating nature. It does not cover error handling or edge cases (e.g., missing key), but for a simple note read this is acceptable. It adds the context that this is a shared store for agent-published state, which is useful.

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?

Two short, focused sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and key constraints (read, key-value, namespace+key, free, read-only). The second provides usage guidance. Zero wasted words.

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 read-only note retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and how it differs from siblings. It does not explicitly state the return format, but the phrase 'READ one shared KEY-VALUE NOTE' implies the value is returned. Given the simplicity, this is adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that namespace and key together identify the note, giving the core semantics. However, it does not clarify that key is optional (default '' in schema) or describe the expected format or behavior when key is omitted. The description adds value but is not fully compensating for the absence 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 states a specific verb ('READ') and resource ('one shared KEY-VALUE NOTE') and explicitly names the identifier components (namespace + key). It also distinguishes from sibling technocore_room by noting it is not for conversation, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when an agent needs a value another agent published') and explicitly states what it is not for ('Not for conversation — that is technocore_room'), naming the alternative. This fully routes the agent.

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