get_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output format (Markdown) but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., note not found), authentication requirements, or rate limits. Basic behavioral info is present, but significant gaps remain for 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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and output format, then adds the optional parameter. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.

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 (two params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essentials: what it does, required input, output format, and optional disambiguation. Missing error handling details, but overall adequate for a straightforward retrieval 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value: 'by its title' and 'Optionally specify folder to disambiguate' reinforce but don't extend the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the full content of a note by its title, returned as Markdown.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from siblings (create, delete, list, search, update) by focusing on retrieval. Could be improved by noting it returns a single note, not a list.

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 mentions 'Optionally specify folder to disambiguate,' providing a clear use case for the folder parameter. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it suggest using search_notes when the title is unknown. The sibling context helps but is not integrated.

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