get_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the error behavior when no such note exists and that the full content is returned, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, truncation, or data sensitivity. Adequate but with clear gaps for a read tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with Args/Returns sections that are compact. The Returns line is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing is bloated.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the important pieces (identity semantics of the ID, error case) are covered. The absence of annotation coverage and any safety/permission context is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 and largely does: it explains note_id is the numeric ID returned by save_note and shown as '#id' in search/list results, which is information the bare integer schema lacks. It stops short of format/range constraints.

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 and resource with scope: fetch exactly one note by ID and return its full content. This clearly separates it from list_notes and search_notes, which return sets of notes, without the agent needing to open another schema.

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 is only implied: the caller must already have a note_id, and the description notes that IDs come from save_note or search/list results. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_notes or list_notes, so guidance is adequate but not stated.

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