read_note

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

The description declares 'Read-only' which indicates no mutations, but it lacks details on error handling, behavior for invalid paths, line range specifics, and does not mention the 'include_sensitive' parameter or its implications. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence with 11 words, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the key action and resource type. Every component is necessary and adds value.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description should hint at the return value (e.g., note content). It does not. Also missing details on line range boundaries, path formatting, and the 'include_sensitive' parameter. Given tool complexity (4 params, no output schema), more context is needed.

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 description adds meaning to three parameters not documented in the schema: 'path' (vault-relative path), 'start_line' and 'end_line' (optional line range). Schema coverage is low (25%), and the description compensates by clarifying the core parameters, though it does not explain 'include_sensitive' beyond the 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 clearly states it reads markdown notes by vault-relative path with an optional line range. It uses specific verb 'read' and resource 'markdown note', distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_notes (search) and index_vault (index).

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 implies usage when you know the vault-relative path and optionally want a line range, but it does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use this tool. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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