get-my-notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves a list including drafts, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a list retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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, efficient Japanese sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list retrieval tool. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning pagination or filtering capabilities.

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 moderate complexity (list retrieval with filtering/pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what's retrieved (user's articles including drafts) but lacks information about return format, error handling, authentication needs, or how it differs from sibling tools. The schema handles parameters well, but overall context is incomplete.

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%, with all three parameters well-documented in the schema (page, perPage, status with enum values). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 '取得する' (get/retrieve) and resource '自分の記事一覧' (list of my articles), including the scope '下書きを含む' (including drafts). It distinguishes from general note retrieval tools like 'get-note' or 'get-user-notes' by specifying it's for the user's own articles. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like 'get-membership-notes' or 'search-notes' beyond the 'my' aspect.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get-user-notes' (which might retrieve notes for any user), 'search-notes' (which might have different filtering capabilities), or 'get-membership-notes' (which might retrieve notes from membership contexts). The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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