get_note

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses case-sensitive matching, exact name requirements, error conditions ('Returns an error if no note exists'), and session attachment logic. Would be perfect with explicit statement about read-only nature or side effects, though 'Retrieve' and 'Fetches' imply this.

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?

Front-loaded with clear one-line summary. Uses structured Args/Returns sections which adds slight verbosity but maintains clarity. Every sentence provides value—examples are concrete, constraints are explicit, and no filler text present. Efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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 2-parameter tool with flat schema and existing output schema, description is exceptionally complete. Covers success behavior, error states, sibling relationships, session management, and parameter semantics. Exceeds requirements by documenting return values even though output schema exists.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description compensates via Args section explaining 'name' (case-sensitive, exact match) and 'session_id' (conditional requirement based on save context). Deducting one point only because it uses structured docstring format rather than integrated prose, but semantics are fully covered.

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?

Opens with specific verb ('Retrieve') + resource ('saved note') + constraint ('exact name'). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling `save_note` ('previously created with') and contrasts with `recall` ('search by content') and `resume_session` ('check session context'), making selection unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this when:' section with three concrete code examples. Directly addresses uncertainty scenarios ('If you're not sure of the note name') and routes to correct alternative (`recall`). Also specifies prerequisite conditions (session_id requirements) for successful invocation.

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