read_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only that the note content is read in full; it does not disclose whether this is read-only, whether any permissions are needed, whether missing paths error, or any other behavioral trait. The verb 'Read' implies no mutation, but no explicit context is added.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler. The essential operation and its scope are front-loaded and immediately clear.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the lack of usage guidance and the thin parameter semantics leave gaps for an agent choosing between this and sibling retrieval tools. The description is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that the path is relative and points to a note, which is useful beyond the schema's bare 'Path' title. It does not give format examples or clarify path syntax, but the added meaning is enough for a minimal 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read the full content of a note.' It clearly implies a single-note retrieval operation, distinguishing it from list_notes and search_vault. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tool or state when this is preferred over alternatives.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the verb 'Read' that this is for retrieving a known note, but nothing routes it between read_note, list_notes, or search_vault.

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