notes_read

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by explaining the fallback behavior to global note and the default project context, providing additional behavioral understanding beyond annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured 18-word sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality without any extraneous information.

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 simplicity and the presence of annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description adequately covers the main use cases. However, it omits error behavior (e.g., not found) and response format, though no output schema exists.

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 descriptions cover each parameter fully (100% coverage), but the main description adds the crucial constraint 'pass exactly one of id or slug' and explains the slug's alias, enhancing the parameter meaning.

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 ('Read') and the resource ('note'), and distinguishes two lookup methods (by id or by slug within project), which differentiates it from sibling tools like notes_create or notes_delete.

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 implies when to use id vs slug but does not explicitly compare to other tools. It lacks guidance on when to use notes_read over memory_read or recall, which are also read-oriented siblings.

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