get_note

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

The description indicates a read operation and lists included fields but lacks details on return format, permissions, or constraints. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for transparency, and while adequate for a simple read, it could be more explicit.

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 sentence with no redundancy, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for output fields) without increasing verbosity. Still, it is concise and clear.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose and output. However, it does not mention return format or prerequisites, which would be beneficial for complete context.

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 100% (the only parameter 'id' has a description 'Note ID'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; therefore, baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('full content of a note'). It lists specific included elements (title, summary, key conclusions, code snippets, tags), making the tool's function distinct from siblings like list_notes or get_relations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_notes for metadata or search_knowledge for searching). The agent must infer usage solely from the description and sibling names.

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