read_note

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation the description discloses useful behavior: it cannot modify anything, non-shared notes are reported as non-existent (a deliberate hiding behavior an agent must expect), and it works even when TrailMark is closed. This goes well past the structured safety hint.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is read and what comes back, then the two behavioral caveats. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

With a single documented parameter, no output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description covers everything an agent needs: the return shape (title and whole text), the error semantics for unshared notes, and availability when the app is closed.

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 100% and the schema already explains the exact `note` name format with an example. The description's mention of the note name and its source in `list_notes` reinforces but does not add meaning 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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (one shared note) and pins the input to the `note` name produced by `list_notes`. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `list_notes` by operating on a single note rather than the list, and it names the return payload (title + whole text).

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?

It tells the agent where the `note` argument comes from (`list_notes`), which is the key routing prerequisite. It does not state an explicit when-not or contrast against `search` or `get_context`, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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