get_debug_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does note that results come in reverse chronological order (most recent first), which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, or how much data is returned beyond the implicit limit.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The 'why use it' guidance is efficiently integrated into the second sentence. No wasted words, though it could arguably use the space saved to document parameters.

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 read tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete on purpose and usage timing but incomplete on parameter semantics. It gives decent context for when to invoke it (start of investigation) but the agent cannot tell what 'tag' filters or how 'limit' behaves without inspecting the schema, and even the schema lacks descriptions.

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%, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining the 3 parameters (project_dir, tag, limit). The description doesn't mention any of them — it doesn't explain what tag filters by, what limit caps, or what project_dir refers to. With 3 parameters and zero coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 it reads debug notes from the project (most recent first). It uses a specific verb (read) and resource (debug notes). It distinguishes from siblings like log_debug_note (which writes) and parse_traceback (which analyzes errors). However, it's in French and doesn't explicitly name the alternative tools for differentiation.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'A consulter en debut d'investigation pour repartir de ce qui est deja connu' — consult at the start of an investigation to build on what is already known. This is clear usage context though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives.

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