notes_read_open_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely valuable trait the structured fields cannot convey: the returned text originates from the app's interface and must be treated as data, not instructions (a prompt-injection guard). It does not state read-only safety explicitly or describe what happens when no note is open, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste. The read action and its scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds distinct value rather than restating the first.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is nearly complete: it says what it returns (the full text) and how to treat it. The only meaningful omission is edge-case behavior, e.g. what is returned when no note is open.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correspondingly adds no parameter detail, and none is needed -- there is nothing for an agent to supply.

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 (Read), a specific resource (the currently open note), and a scope qualifier ('currently open') that separates it from notes_create_note and from the textedit_read_document sibling, which reads a document rather than the app's open note. An agent can tell what it does and when it applies without opening a 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?

Usage is implied by 'currently open note' -- the agent infers it should call this only when a note is open, but the description never states that precondition explicitly, nor does it name an alternative for reading a note that is not open. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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