cw_get_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the critical behavioral limitation: this build cannot dispatch the required CakeScript call. It does not describe return format or permissions, but the key blocker is surfaced clearly.

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 sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the key limitation immediately after. The CakeScript dependency is compactly stated, though the export-route reference could be more concrete.

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 gives the essential warning that this tool cannot work on this build and suggests an export route, but it does not name the concrete alternative tool or explain the required index parameter. For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is adequate but incomplete.

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%, and the description only explains the clip default (clip 1). It does not clarify the required index parameter, which likely identifies the track, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: get the notes of a clip on a track, with the default clip index. It clearly distinguishes note retrieval from clip listing, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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?

Explicitly warns that the tool needs CakeScript (T1), which this SONAR build cannot dispatch, and points to the export route as the verified alternative. The guidance is clear but the alternative route is not mapped to a specific sibling tool.

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