get_note

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

The description provides no behavioral traits beyond the annotations, which already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. It does not add context about return values, error behavior, or side effects. The annotations cover safety but the description adds no extra value.

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 two words, with no wasted content. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is minimal to the point of being telegraphic. It earns a 4 because it avoids verbosity while still conveying the basic action.

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?

With no output schema present, the description should explain what is returned, but it does not. It also lacks context about how this differs from list_notes or search_notes, and does not mention error conditions or the nature of the fetched note. Given the simplicity, more context is needed for full 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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter note_id with a clear description 'the id of the note'. The tool description itself does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fetch a note' clearly states a specific verb (fetch) and resource (note), making the tool's basic purpose evident. However, it does not include any scoping details or differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_task or get_bill, which follow the same pattern.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_notes or search_notes. The description simply states what it does, not when it should be preferred or any exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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