get-note-raw

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It merely states '读ENML' without any mention of side effects, error handling, permissions, or what the response contains. The agent cannot infer that this is a read-only operation or how invalid GUIDs are handled.

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?

Extremely concise (two characters) but at the cost of informativeness. Every sentence should earn its place; here, the single phrase does not help an agent understand or invoke the tool correctly. Conciseness without substance is under-specification.

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 description is grossly incomplete given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema). It fails to explain return format, parameter effects, required permissions, or error scenarios. An agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the description alone.

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 clarify parameter meanings. It fails entirely: the 'includeBodyOnly' parameter defaults to false but is not explained, and 'guid' is assumed understandable from its name. The description adds zero value beyond the raw schema.

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 '读ENML' is Chinese for 'read ENML', which roughly matches the tool name but is opaque to an English-speaking AI. It does not clarify what ENML stands for (likely Evernote Markup Language) or that this tool retrieves the raw content of a note. The purpose is vaguely conveyed but not distinct from siblings like 'replace-note-enml'.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'get-notebook', 'find-notes', or 'replace-note-enml'. The agent receives no context about prerequisites, common use cases, or exclusions.

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