notes_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get details' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens with invalid note IDs, whether there are rate limits, or what format the details are returned in. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a clear function in communicating the tool's basic intent.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, how to interpret the parameters, what authentication is needed, or what the return format looks like. The description leaves too many open questions for effective tool usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'noteId', 'properties', or 'associations' mean. It doesn't explain that 'properties' likely filters which note fields to return, or that 'associations' retrieves related objects. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific note'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like notes_list or notes_search by specifying retrieval of a single note's details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from notes_batch_read, which might also retrieve note details in bulk.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose notes_get over notes_batch_read for single notes, or when notes_list might be more appropriate for multiple notes. There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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