read_note

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

The description communicates a read-only action and indicates the returned content type (body markdown and frontmatter). However, it does not mention potential errors, handling of missing or deleted notes, or any side effects, and there are no annotations to supplement.

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 a single concise sentence with an example, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

It covers the core purpose and return contents, but lacks parameter details and usage context. The frontmatter/body mention helps, but the description does not fully specify the response format.

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 only parameter 'path' has no schema description and the description only gives an example filename. It does not explain whether the path is vault-relative, absolute, or how to reference folders.

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 reads a note and specifies content includes body markdown and frontmatter, with an example path. This distinguishes it from list or write operations among siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_notes or search_text, aside from an example filename. It does not mention prerequisites or context.

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