read_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves content but lacks details on permissions required, error handling (e.g., for invalid UUIDs), rate limits, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get full content of a note') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the resource and key parameter, making it easy to parse quickly. No fluff or redundancy detracts from clarity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what 'full content' includes (e.g., text, metadata), potential errors, or return structure. For a read operation with no structured output information, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the single 'uuid' parameter. The description mentions 'by UUID', reinforcing the schema's note, but doesn't provide additional context like UUID format examples or where to obtain UUIDs. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get full content') and resource ('a note by UUID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'search_notes' (which finds notes) or 'update_note' (which modifies notes). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'read_task' or 'read_workspace' for different resource types, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'read_note' over 'search_notes' (e.g., when you have the exact UUID vs. needing to find notes by content), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid UUID. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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