Read Markdown note

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only names the operation and source directory, but doesn't explain what happens when neither id nor fileName is provided (both are optional in the schema), which parameter takes precedence if both are given, or whether the note content is returned directly. It also omits error behavior for missing notes. This leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and key parameters.

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?

For a simple read tool, the description is passable but incomplete without annotations or an output schema. It lacks details about return value, missing-note behavior, and the semantics of the optional parameters, which are important for an agent to use it correctly. More context would be needed for full confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that id and fileName are alternative identifiers, which adds semantic value beyond the plain schema properties. However, it doesn't specify the relationship (mutually exclusive? precedence?), value formats, or whether fileName includes extension, leaving room for confusion.

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 the tool reads a Markdown note by id or fileName, with a specific source (NOTES_DATA_DIR). The verb 'Read' and resource 'Markdown note' are explicit, and the two parameters are identified. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notes_save (writing) and notes_list (listing).

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: you call this when you need the content of a specific note by id or fileName. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear. A more explicit 'use notes_list to enumerate notes' would have been stronger, but the core guidance is present.

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