read_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the operation is a read and discloses the exact return structure {path, frontmatter, body}, which is transparent and actionable. It does not mention failure behavior for missing paths, but this is minor for such a simple read tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates both purpose and return shape with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read operation, the description provides the core behavior and return shape, which is helpful especially given there is no output schema. However, the lack of path parameter semantics leaves a meaningful gap: an agent must infer how to supply the path. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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% and the only parameter 'path' has no schema description. The description adds minimal context by implying the path refers to a vault note, but it does not clarify path format, vault-root relativity, file extensions, or valid values. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema coverage.

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 ('读取' / read) and resource ('vault 笔记'), and also specifies the exact return shape {path, frontmatter, body}. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_note, list_notes, and semantic_search.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_notes or semantic_search. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools are provided.

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