ima_get_note_content

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral load, but it only discloses a default output format ('默认返回纯文本' / returns plain text by default). It says nothing about permissions, behavior with missing/invalid note IDs, or what else can be returned when the format is changed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the default behavior — no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool with an unexplained numeric parameter.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage on two parameters, the description should explain both the retrieval semantics and the format option. It covers only the plain-text default, leaving the format parameter's value space and the returned content shape undocumented.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, yet note_id is not explained at all and target_content_format's numeric values (0 = ? presumably plain text, others = ?) are never enumerated. The phrase '默认返回纯文本' only loosely hints that the numeric parameter controls format, leaving an agent unable to choose a non-default value safely.

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 a specific verb and resource ('获取 IMA 笔记内容' / get the content of an IMA note), which clearly sets it apart from retrieval-adjacent siblings such as ima_search_notes or ima_list_notes that return lists rather than content. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus ima_search_notes, ima_list_notes, or ima_get_image_url, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the note ID must come first). The only usage hint is the default behavior note, which is not a selection criterion.

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