get_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the return fields (pitch, onset, duration, etc.), which is helpful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only (though the name 'get' implies it), whether there are ordering or pagination characteristics, or any permission requirements. The safety profile is only implied, not explicit.

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 compact two-sentence structure: the first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second enumerates the return fields. There is no redundant fluff, and the most critical information is front-loaded. It is exceptional for its brevity and clarity.

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 absence of an output schema, providing the return fields is a positive step. However, the description does not clarify potential limitations (e.g., whether it returns all notes at once, ordering, or performance implications) and does not differentiate from find_notes. It is adequate for basic invocation but lacks deeper context that a richer description could offer.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both groupIndex and trackIndex, including their 0-based nature and defaults. The description merely echoes '0-based indices' without adding any additional meaning, such as valid ranges or behavioral consequences of different parameter values. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('notes'), and a precise scope ('specific track and group reference'), and it enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from write operations and from find_notes, which implies search rather than direct retrieval.

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 that this tool is for retrieving all notes from a given track/group, but it does not explicitly specify when to use it over siblings like find_notes or get_phonemes. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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