Read a Ygdria note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral trait: the response carries a version that must be retained for subsequent writes, and that version may alternatively come from a note resource or a prior write response — useful concurrency context beyond structured data.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with zero filler. The final sentence about version sourcing is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but nothing is padded.

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 simple two-parameter read with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is adequate on the write-after-read workflow. It leaves real gaps on the format options and on what the returned note representation contains, which the agent would have to discover by calling.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions the `format` parameter or its markdown/json/html enum and default. The only semantic content it adds ("version") is a return value, not an input, so the parameters remain unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read a note through ETAPI"), so the agent knows this is a single-note fetch. It does not distinguish itself from plural siblings like get_notes or section-scoped reads like get_section, but the core action is 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?

"Read current content before replacing existing text" implies the read-before-write pattern relative to replace_content/edit_content, which is genuine usage context. However, no alternative is named explicitly (get_notes, get_section) and no exclusion conditions are given, so the agent must infer routing.

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