read_attributes

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 states 'read-only access' (safety profile), describes what gets returned ('structured data with labels, relations, and summary information'), and specifies the scope ('all attributes'). It doesn't mention error conditions or performance characteristics, but provides solid 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?

Three sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and scope, second clarifies access type, third describes return format. Every sentence adds value and the description is appropriately sized for a single-parameter read tool.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: purpose, scope, safety profile, and return format. It could benefit from mentioning what happens with invalid note IDs or whether it returns empty results for notes without attributes, but overall it's quite complete for this complexity level.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'noteId' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to since schema coverage is complete. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Read all attributes'), the resource ('for a note'), and what it returns ('labels and relations'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_note' by focusing specifically on attributes rather than the full note content, and from 'manage_attributes' by being read-only.

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 clear context for when to use it ('to inspect current attributes assigned to any note') and implicitly distinguishes it from write operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'get_note' for full note content versus just attributes.

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