get_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. It only mentions 'full content' and gives an example ID, but does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or whether the note might be trashed or inaccessible. Minimal behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it does not waste words and every component contributes to 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, the description lacks any note about behavior on missing IDs, access scopes, or pagination, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent to handle.

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?

Although the schema only defines note_id as a string, the description adds an Args block defining it as 'the unique identifier of the note' and provides an example. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, even though schema coverage is 0% by itself.

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 'Get a specific note by ID with full content', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_notes (which implies listing multiple notes) by emphasizing 'specific note by ID'.

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: use when you have a note ID and need full content. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly reference alternatives like list_notes for browsing notes, leaving differentiation to inference.

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