get_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and 'Read' does convey non-mutating behavior. It does not disclose what happens when no note exists or whether the tool can fail, but the read-only behavior is reasonably clear.

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 with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the clarifying exclusion 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 simple read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly adequate, but the unexplained 'content' parameter is a meaningful gap. The agent cannot fully determine how to invoke the tool correctly without guessing at that parameter's role.

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 documents 'cwd' but leaves 'content' completely undescribed, and the description only reinforces the cwd concept. Since schema coverage is only 50%, the description needed to clarify 'content' but never mentions it, leaving an agent unsure whether it is a filter, output, or payload.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the exact resource ('magents-owned shared note for a working directory'). The closing sentence ('Not first-party agent memory') differentiates it from sibling memory tools like read_memory.

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?

It establishes clear context for when the tool applies (reading the shared note tied to a cwd) and explicitly excludes first-party agent memory. It does not name the alternative tool, but the sibling list makes read_memory the obvious counterpart.

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