brain_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return format (full Markdown plus frontmatter), which is genuinely useful behavior context, but says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior for a missing id, or any permission constraints. The output schema covers return shape, lowering the bar somewhat.

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?

One tight sentence with the key output detail front-loaded; every word earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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?

A simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. What is missing is minor but real: the identifier format and behavior when the note does not exist.

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 single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining what the id is (slug, UUID, path?) or where an agent obtains it. With only one parameter this is a small gap, but it is entirely 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?

Specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the full Markdown of one note') with a scope qualifier ('frontmatter included'). The phrase 'one note' implicitly distinguishes it from brain_list and brain_search, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch a single note's content, as opposed to listing or searching via brain_list/brain_search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of prerequisites such as needing to know the note id first.

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