get_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly implies a read-only retrieval operation and specifies the required ID format, but it does not mention behavior on missing/incorrect IDs, authorization, or rate limits. It is minimally adequate for a simple fetch tool.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The action is stated first, and the critical parameter format and example are front-loaded in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential invocation details: how to construct the ID and where to obtain it. Minor omissions like error behaviors or permissions are unlikely to block correct invocation.

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 only defines note_id as a string with no description. The tool description compensates fully by specifying the exact structure ('<company>/<project>/<file-without-extension>') and giving a realistic example, plus the source of the value (search_notes results).

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 uses a specific verb ('Pobierz' / retrieve) and names the exact resource: the full content of a single note by identifier. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like search_notes, which searches, and list_projects, which lists projects.

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 explicitly says the identifier comes from search_notes results and provides a concrete format with an example. It implies the correct workflow: first search_notes, then get_note. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear.

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