get_note_attributes

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

With no annotations, the description has to carry the behavioral burden. It correctly frames the operation as a read-style getter and lists what will be returned, but it does not describe error behavior, return shape, or how groupIndex/trackIndex influence which note is targeted. This is adequate but has notable 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, direct sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then provides specific return-field details. There is no redundant wording or filler that an agent would have to parse wastefully.

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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and low parameter schema coverage, this description does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently resolve track/group indexing or to determine the relationship between get_notes and get_note_attributes. It is a clear summary but not a complete invocation guide.

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?

Only noteIndex has a schema description; groupIndex and trackIndex are undocumented in the schema with 33% coverage. The prose description does not explain what these parameters mean, what defaults imply, or why they are needed, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed note attributes') and enumerates the exact attributes returned, so an agent can understand the tool's function. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling get_notes, but the attribute list makes the tool's scope reasonably distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_notes, get_phonemes, or get_computed_phonemes, and no exclusion cases or alternatives are mentioned. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and attribute list.

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