View

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a read/search tool (not a mutation tool) through terms like 'view', 'search', 'retrieval', 'read', and 'find'. However, it lacks details about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response formats that would be helpful for a tool with 8 parameters and complex functionality.

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 perfectly structured and concise - a single sentence stating the core purpose followed by a comma-separated list of actions with brief parenthetical explanations. Every element earns its place, providing maximum information density with zero 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 complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the action parameter semantics. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints that would be necessary for complete understanding. The action explanations are helpful but don't fully compensate for the missing structural context.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining what each 'action' parameter value does. It provides semantic meaning for all 8 enum values, mapping actions to their purposes. While it doesn't detail other parameters like 'maxChunks' or 'headingDepth', the action explanations provide crucial context beyond the bare 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 purpose with specific verbs ('view and search notes') and lists eight distinct actions with precise functionality. It effectively distinguishes this read/search tool from likely sibling tools like 'edit' (mutation) and 'vault' (management).

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 clear context by listing all available actions with brief explanations, helping users understand when to use each action. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among sibling tools like 'edit' or 'vault' for different operations.

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