get-note

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the disambiguation behavior (returns candidates for ambiguous titles) and that noteId skips resolution. However, it does not describe behavior when no parameters are given, error handling, or return format details.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no superfluous words. Every sentence contributes essential guidance.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers core functionality and disambiguation. However, it omits default behavior when no parameters are provided, which could leave agents uncertain.

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 schema covers two of three parameters with descriptions (path, noteId). The description adds value by explaining the title parameter's role in identification and the disambiguation mechanism, which is not present in the schema's empty title description.

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 'Get a note's full content and details' using a specific verb and resource. It identifies two identification methods (noteId or title) and distinguishes from sibling tools like create-note, delete-note, etc., which serve different purposes.

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 provides clear usage context: retrieves note content by noteId or title, with optional folder path for disambiguation. It hints at when to retry with noteId or path if title is ambiguous, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives to other sibling tools.

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