zk_get_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Retrieve') but fails to describe critical traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the note doesn't exist), permission requirements, rate limits, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a read operation in a note-taking context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a brief parameter explanation. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the formatting with indentation and 'Args:' could be slightly cleaner for direct readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with potential behavioral nuances), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter details, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error cases, or interaction with sibling tools, making it inadequate for reliable agent use without additional context.

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 adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'identifier' can be an ID or title, but doesn't specify format (e.g., string patterns), uniqueness constraints, or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides some value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a note'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'zk_search_notes' or 'zk_list_notes_by_date' by focusing on direct lookup by ID or title. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'zk_get_linked_notes' or 'zk_find_similar_notes', which slightly limits differentiation.

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 implies usage for retrieving notes by specific identifiers (ID or title), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'zk_search_notes' for broader queries or 'zk_list_notes_by_date' for date-based listing. It lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context somewhat ambiguous.

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