get_note

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that notes are grounded in a specific repository pinned at commit SHAs, that citations are commit-pinned permalinks, and instructs the agent to cite sources rather than present claims as its own. This is rich behavioral context well beyond a simple fetch.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose with a clear verb and resource. The second gives usage context, and the third adds important citation-grounding context. All sentences earn their place with no redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description clearly states what will be returned (Markdown body, links/backlinks, citations with permalinks) and when to use it. For a one-parameter lookup tool, this is comprehensive and self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the single id parameter and examples. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' plus resource 'one note' and enumerates its contents (Markdown body, links/backlinks, citations with permalinks). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating it should be used after search_notes or list_maps provides an id.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'once search_notes or list_maps has given you an id', providing a clear workflow order relative to siblings. It implies that search/list tools are for discovery and this tool is for retrieval, and adds a behavioral expectation about citing sources.

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