hedgedoc_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads content but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, does not mention error handling (e.g., if the note does not exist), or any auth/rate-limit considerations. The name suggests read-only, but the description adds no insight beyond that.

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: one sentence stating the core purpose and one bullet defining the parameter. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It is front-loaded and to the point.

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 with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate: it states the purpose and explains the parameter. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral detail. The presence of an output schema covers return format, but the description itself is incomplete for an agent that must decide between this and siblings. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but leaves clear gaps.

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?

The description includes a clear explanation of the sole parameter: 'note_id: The note ID or alias (the slug from the URL)'. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Note Id' title, explaining the format and that aliases are accepted. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fills the gap effectively.

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 uses a clear verb ('Read') and specifies the resource ('a HedgeDoc note') and the exact output ('raw markdown content'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hedgedoc_info (which likely returns metadata) and hedgedoc_slide_url (which generates links).

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that hedgedoc_info might be better for metadata or that hedgedoc_get_revision is for historical content. Usage context is only implied by the phrase 'Read the raw markdown content.'

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