read_note

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying that it returns exact saved text with the info block and that it is intended for copying old_text exactly before a replacement. The read-only behavior is also stated, though that overlaps with readOnlyHint=true. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then immediately routes the agent to alternatives. It is appropriately sized with no filler; every sentence contributes to selection or correct invocation.

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?

This is a simple read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description supplies id provenance, exact-read behavior, and sibling alternatives, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both id and private. The description reinforces the id source with search_notes or handed note ids, but does not add meaning beyond the schema and does not mention the private parameter's semantics.

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 exact text of a note as saved, including its info block, by a search_notes or handed note id. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings open_result and read_file_text, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: use before replace_in_note so old_text can be copied exactly, use open_result for shorter question-answering reads, and use read_file_text for path-known notes or files. These alternatives and conditions are stated directly.

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