get-note

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool performs a read operation and converts content to Markdown. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or side effects, but for a read-only tool, this is minimal yet adequate.

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 clear sentence in Chinese, front-loading the action and key behavior. Every word adds value; 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and conversion. It lacks explicit output format details but is still fairly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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% (guid parameter described as '笔记 guid'). The tool description adds context that the tool reads a note and converts to Markdown, but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'read' and resource 'note', specifies retrieval by guid, and mentions conversion to Markdown. It distinguishes from siblings: list-notebooks lists notebooks, find-notes searches, create-note creates, while get-note retrieves a single note by guid.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name and description: use to read a note by guid. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternatives explicitly named.

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