read_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful constraints: the path is 'safe' and 'relative', and the heading must be 'exact'. However, it does not explain max_chars truncation behavior or error handling when a note or heading is missing.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds information: read action, Markdown notes, exact heading support, and the safe relative path constraint.

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?

The definition is adequate for a simple read tool and an output schema is present, so return values need not be described. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use read_note versus search_notes and leaves max_chars behavior unstated, creating minor but real gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for source ('relative path') and heading ('exact heading'), which the raw schema does not provide. It does not describe max_chars, though the parameter name and default hint at character limiting.

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 'Read' with a clear resource ('one Markdown note') and scope ('using a safe relative path' / 'exact heading'). It distinguishes itself from siblings: read_note is for direct content access by path, search_notes is for discovery, and vault_status is for vault-level information.

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 clearly implies this tool should be used when the agent already knows the note path and wants to read its content or a specific heading. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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