get_all_notes_by_clipid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the basic action without any details about what the tool returns (e.g., format, structure), whether it's read-only or has side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand how the tool behaves beyond its name.

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 extremely concise at four words, which is efficient but borders on under-specification. It's front-loaded with the core action, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. While not verbose, it lacks necessary detail to be truly helpful.

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 complexity (retrieving data with one parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'notes' are, the return format, or any behavioral aspects, leaving the agent with minimal context to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter 'clip_id' is undocumented. The description adds no semantic information about this parameter—it doesn't explain what a 'clip_id' is, its format, valid values, or where to obtain it. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Get clip all notes by clip id' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with slightly different wording. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'notes', but lacks specificity about what 'notes' are (e.g., musical notes, annotations) or the scope of 'all'. While it distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_clip_info_by_id', it doesn't clearly differentiate from others like 'get_detail_clip' or 'remove_clip_all_notes'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference any sibling tools. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use this instead of 'get_detail_clip' or 'get_clip_info_by_id', which might overlap in functionality.

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