get_note_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behaviors: the vlm mode relies on external VLM APIs and lists supported providers and priority order, and it warns about potential failure without proper URL tokens. It also reveals image compression behavior. It does not mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but for the given information it is reasonably transparent.

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 compact and front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence. It efficiently packs essential usage caveats (URL token requirement, image modes, API key options) into two dense sentences without unnecessary filler. Every clause contributes valuable information.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the critical prerequisites (URL token), mode-specific behavior (original vs vlm), and mentions return formats (Base64, text description). It does not describe the full return structure or error conditions, but given the complexity, it provides enough context to invoke the tool safely and effectively.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the difference between original and vlm modes, the API key priority, and the critical noteUrl requirement. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions and enhances the agent's understanding of how to use the parameters effectively.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: '获取笔记的完整内容' (get the full content of a note), which precisely states the tool's function. It differentiates from sibling tools like download_note_images and get_batch_notes_from_favorites by focusing on single-note content retrieval with optional components.

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 context is well explained: it mandates using URLs with xsec_token from get_favorites_list or search_notes_by_keyword, explicitly warning that otherwise access may fail. It also clarifies when to choose 'original' vs 'vlm' image modes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use get_batch_notes_from_favorites instead), though the purpose distinction is fairly clear.

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