vault_read_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 adds a valuable security warning about exposing untrusted content from user-registered vaults and potential prompt injection risks. It does not detail error handling or edge cases, but for a read operation this is sufficient.

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 exactly two sentences: the first clearly states the tool's function, and the second delivers a critical security warning. No wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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, the description covers the main purpose and adds an important security warning. It does not explain the return format, but the response_format parameter in the schema covers this. Error behavior is not mentioned, but that is a minor gap.

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 100%, and each parameter is already well-described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond clarifying that 'path' is relative and the note is in a vault. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 reads the content of a specific note by relative path, using a specific verb (reads) and resource (note content). It distinguishes from siblings like vault_search, vault_list_notes, and vault_get_related, which have different purposes.

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: use this when you need the content of a specific note given its path. However, there is no explicit differentiation from alternative sibling tools, such as vault_search or vault_get_related, nor any when-not-to-use guidance. The security caution provides context but not selection guidance.

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