temp-notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'clears the current note, making it empty,' which implies a destructive mutation (erasing content). However, it doesn't disclose whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects other data, or has side effects like confirmation prompts. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste: 'Clears the current note, making it empty.' It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, appropriately sized for a simple tool, and every word earns its place by specifying the verb, resource, and result.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, permissions) and usage guidelines versus siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate more for the mutation nature, but it only covers the basic purpose, leaving gaps in completeness.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters. It efficiently avoids unnecessary details about inputs.

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 action ('clears') and resource ('the current note'), specifying the outcome ('making it empty'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'append_note' (adds content) and 'write_note' (sets content), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'read_note' (which is read-only) or explain what 'current note' means, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'write_note' (which could also set the note to empty) or 'append_note'. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether a note must exist to clear it, or exclusions for when not to use it. Usage is implied only by the action itself, with no explicit alternatives or conditions.

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