get_note_info_tool

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

No annotations provided; description does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or what 'metadata and statistics' entails (e.g., creation date, tags, links). The phrase 'without retrieving its full content' is the only behavioral clue.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, but the Args/Returns section repeats information that could be integrated. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema and only 0% schema coverage, the description should detail return values (e.g., list of metadata fields) and clarify any constraints, but it does not.

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%; description only mentions 'path: Path to the note' (redundant) and completely omits the optional 'ctx' parameter, leaving its purpose unclear.

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 states it retrieves metadata without full content, which distinguishes it from read_note_tool, but is vague about what specific metadata ('statistics') and does not differentiate from note_statistics_fs_tool or get_note_connections_tool among many siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like read_note_tool or note_statistics_fs_tool; no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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