read_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that the note content is returned, that max_lines may truncate output, and that omitting max_lines returns the full note. 'Read' also clearly implies a non-mutating operation, which is sufficient for 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 concise and well-structured with a one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds information about invocation or behavior, with no filler or redundant content.

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 two-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description is complete: it defines the purpose, both parameters, truncation behavior, and error return. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates. It explains note_path as relative to the vault root and describes max_lines as optional with explicit default behavior. This gives the agent everything needed to set both parameters correctly.

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 opens with 'Read a note from the vault,' which names a specific verb, resource, and domain. It clearly differentiates content retrieval from sibling operations like get_metadata, search_notes, or append_to_note.

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 use case is implied: use this tool when you need a note's actual content, rather than metadata or search results. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer read_note over alternatives like get_metadata or search_notes, nor does it give any exclusion criteria.

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