resolve_note_id

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 effectively describes key behaviors: 'Simple title-based search with user choice when multiple matches found' and mentions fuzzy search capabilities in the parameter context. However, it doesn't address potential failure modes or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides usage rules and behavioral context. Every element serves a clear purpose with no 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 lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about purpose, usage rules, and basic behavior. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what format the resolved ID will be returned in or what happens when no matches are found.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, though it reinforces the noteName parameter's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 purpose: 'Resolves a note/folder name to its actual note ID for use with other tools.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_note or search_notes by emphasizing the ID resolution function rather than content retrieval or general search.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'You MUST call this function when users provide note names instead of note IDs... UNLESS the user explicitly provides a note ID.' This creates clear when-to-use rules and distinguishes it from tools that work directly with IDs.

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