notes_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the tool returns availability and counts, which is beyond the annotations. No mention of authentication or rate limits, but the tool is simple and read-only.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Perfectly concise for a tool with no parameters.

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 status check tool with no input parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it returns availability and counts. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON structure), which could be more precise. Overall sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

No parameters in the input schema, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no additional clarification is required.

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 tool checks Apple Notes automation availability and returns account/note counts. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Apple Notes automation'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like notes_list_accounts or notes_get.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's a preliminary check before other operations, but does not state this directly or mention exclusions. The context of siblings provides some implicit usage context.

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