read_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the whole document is returned rather than a snippet, but says nothing about behavior for a missing note or whether the extension is required.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and return value, with the input format demonstrated inline rather than described abstractly. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the key facts (full text returned, keyed by file name) are present. The main gap is error behavior when the note does not exist, a small omission 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 coverage is 0% — the single 'name' parameter has no description at all — so the description carries the burden and does so: 'by file name' plus the concrete example 'opnsense-dhcp-kea.md' communicates the expected format, including the .md extension.

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: 'Return the full text of one memory note by file name.' The singular 'one note' and the file-name keying implicitly contrast with search_notes, but the sibling is never named.

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 implied by 'by file name' — the agent infers this is for fetching a known note rather than discovering them. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_notes or what to do if the file name is unknown.

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