get-note

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

Discloses the ambiguous title resolution behavior (returns candidates). No annotations provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. Missing details on error handling when note not found, but the core read-only behavior is clear.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and address the key edge case of ambiguous titles. No unnecessary words.

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 exists, and the description only vaguely mentions 'full content and details'. Missing details on return format and error cases. The ambiguity handling is well-covered, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 67%. Description adds meaning for noteId and path, clarifying their roles. However, the title parameter lacks documentation in both schema and description, leaving its format or exact semantics unclear.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a note's full content and details, specifying two identification methods (noteId or title) and optional folder path scoping. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like search-notes or list-notes by its focus on retrieving a single note with full details.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on resolving ambiguous titles by retrying with noteId or path. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search-notes or list-notes for broader queries.

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