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 tool retrieves a note, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention permissions, error handling (e.g., if ID is invalid), or performance aspects. It adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 main purpose stated first. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections add structure but are concise. Every sentence contributes, though the 'Returns' section could be more informative, keeping it efficient overall.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic operation and parameter, but lacks details on usage, behavior, and output specifics. It's adequate for a simple retrieval tool but has clear gaps in providing full 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'note_id' is the 'ID of the note to retrieve', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't provide details like format, constraints, or examples, only basic semantics, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('Get') and resource ('note'), specifying it retrieves a note by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_note' or 'search_notes' by focusing on retrieval of a specific item, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_note' or 'delete_note' in terms of operation type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions retrieving by ID but doesn't specify contexts like needing a known ID, or when to prefer 'search_notes' for unknown IDs. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.

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