upnote_get_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It claims 'full text' but the schema reveals max_chars truncates the body by default at 20000, so the description is somewhat misleading. It also does not mention read-only behavior, errors for missing ids, or the response format.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning: get, full text, one note, by id.

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 two-parameter getter, the description plus schema is mostly adequate, but there is no output schema or annotation coverage and the 'full text' wording conflicts with the default truncation behavior. Missing behavior on invalid ids and exact return shape leave minor 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 documents max_chars including its default and truncation behavior, but the id parameter has no schema description. The tool description only says 'by id,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name, and it does not mention max_chars at all.

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), the resource (one note), and the selection criteria (by id), and 'full text' sets it apart from list/search siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from upnote_open_note or name alternatives, so sibling differentiation is left somewhat to inference.

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 phrase 'by id' implies this tool is for fetching a specific known note after search or listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives like upnote_search_notes or upnote_list_notes. The usage context is reasonable but not stated.

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