get_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of indicating behavior. It communicates that the operation is read-only and returns the complete note, but it does not disclose behavior for missing IDs, permission issues, or response format details.

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, tightly worded sentence. It states the action and the key distinguishing constraint with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read operation, this is largely sufficient: the agent knows to pass a note ID and expects the full note in return. It would be more complete with a note about not-found or error behavior, but no output schema makes that gap less critical.

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 schema has a bare integer 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage. The phrase 'by its id' confirms the purpose of the parameter, but it adds no detail about where the ID comes from, what it refers to beyond the obvious note ID, or any formatting constraints.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'read one note in full by its id.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_notes and list_notes, which search or list rather than fetch a single full note.

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?

It implies the appropriate use case: fetching a known note by ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_notes, search_notes, or update_note, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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