macos_note_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads content but doesn't describe what 'content' includes (e.g., text, metadata), potential errors (e.g., if the note ID is invalid), or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Read the content of a note'). There is no wasted language, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary details.

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 complexity (a read operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'content' includes, potential return values, or error conditions. For a tool with no structured output or behavioral annotations, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100% description coverage, with the noteId parameter documented as 'Note ID (from macos_note_list)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only repeats the need for a note ID without elaborating on format or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Read') and resource ('content of a note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like macos_note_list (which lists notes) and macos_note_create (which creates notes), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description is specific but could be more precise about what 'content' includes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a note ID from macos_note_list), exclusions, or comparisons to other note-related tools like macos_note_list or macos_note_folders. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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