clio_get_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation and promises 'full detail,' but it does not specify which fields are included, error behavior, or any special edge cases. This is basic but not comprehensive transparency.

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 concise phrase with no wasted words. It is appropriately minimal for a simple getter tool and front-loads the core purpose effectively.

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 one-parameter getter, the description covers the essential action but omits parameter clarification and any details about the return format. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least state what 'full detail' includes, which it does not. Overall, it is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 schema has a single 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining what 'id' refers to or how to obtain it. The agent must infer from the tool name that it is the note ID, which is not explicitly stated.

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 'Full detail for one note' clearly indicates a retrieval of a single note, and it is distinct from the sibling 'clio_find_notes' which likely searches. However, the verb is implicit, relying on the tool name 'get' to convey the action.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus 'clio_find_notes' or other fetching tools. The description does not mention that it requires a known note ID or that it should be used when a specific note is already identified.

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