notes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it implies a read-only retrieval of a markdown file, which is helpful. However, it does not say what happens if the file does not exist (created empty, error, or empty result), what the return format is, or how the notes relate to the required 'project' parameter.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and backed by the timing cue. Minor inefficiency: the pronoun 'them' requires the reader to infer the referent is the notes.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read with no output schema, so the bar is low, but with zero annotation coverage the description should still state the return shape and the missing-file behavior. It covers what the notes are for but not what an agent actually receives.

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 0% for the single required 'project' parameter, so the description needs to explain it and does not. Worse, the description says 'this workspace' while the schema requires a project argument, leaving the scoping semantics unresolved.

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 names a concrete resource (the workspace's own NOTES.md file) and its content type (what worked, what to avoid), so an agent knows what it will get back. It is clear about purpose but never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'note' tool, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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?

'Read them when you start' gives an explicit trigger condition, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of naming when not to use it or pointing to the sibling 'note' tool for writing, so exclusions are absent.

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