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 correctly describes the return value (frontmatter and markdown body) and implies read-only behavior via the verb 'Read'. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or that it will error if the path does not exist.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the action, and the second specifies the return content. No extraneous information, well-structured.

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 description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output for a simple read operation. It lacks details about error conditions (e.g., missing note) and authentication requirements, but these are not critical given the simplicity and the presence of a well-documented parameter.

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 input schema already provides a complete description of the single parameter 'path' (including an example). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Read a note') and the resource ('from the vault') and specifies the output (parsed frontmatter and markdown body). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_frontmatter, list_notes, create_note, append_note, and edit_note, which all involve modification or listing.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to read a note's content) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. This is acceptable but lacks explicit exclusions.

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