getNotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves notes but does not describe key behaviors: whether it returns all notes or filtered subsets, the format of the output (e.g., list, object), pagination, error handling, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves data retrieval.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get notes'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameter, but this is minor.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of note objects, plain text), how results are formatted, or any limitations (e.g., max notes per request). For a data retrieval tool with no structured output information, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'section' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the difference between 'ideas' and 'learning' sections. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score 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 the tool's purpose ('Get notes') and specifies the source sections ('ideas or learning'), which provides basic clarity. However, it lacks specificity about what 'notes' are (e.g., text entries, metadata) and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'getKnowledge' or 'getInbox', which might retrieve similar content. The description is vague about the scope and format of the retrieved notes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'getKnowledge' (which might retrieve structured knowledge) or 'getInbox' (which might handle temporary notes). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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