check_plugin_conversation_note

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only indicates it checks and displays data. It lacks explicit statements about being read-only or having no side effects, though the verb 'verificar' suggests a query operation.

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 concise: a single sentence after a dash with no redundant information. The '[query]' tag hints at its purpose. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers the basic action and output (shows customer data), but lacks detail on the exact structure of returned data or whether it returns a boolean. Given no output schema, it is slightly incomplete but adequate for a simple check tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for session_id. The tool description adds minor context (plugin chat session) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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's function: checking if a note exists for a plugin chat session and showing associated customer data. It uses specific verbs (verificar, comprueba) and distinguishes from sibling 'save_plugin_conversation_note'.

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 implies usage for checking existence of a note, contrasting with save/update tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or alternative tools, leaving slight ambiguity.

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