get_context_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the returned context includes, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, error behavior for missing notes, or any access constraints; it relies on the verb 'Get' to imply a read operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated first, followed by a minimal Args section. There is no redundant or filler content, and every sentence adds useful information.

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 a simple read operation, an output schema, and well-documented parameters, the description is largely complete. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over closely related siblings, but that is partially mitigated by the clear content list.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters: note_path is described as relative to the vault root, and activity_days is described as the number of days of activity history to include. This is exactly the semantic information an agent needs beyond the raw schema.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('context for a specific note') and specifies the content categories: metadata, sections, activity, and references. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_metadata or read_note, but the stated scope is specific enough to distinguish it.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need a broader context bundle for a particular note. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when a sibling tool like get_metadata or find_backlinks would be more appropriate, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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