vault_get_note

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It marks the tool as a read operation and discloses the return payload's key components (frontmatter, resolved links, broken links). It does not mention pagination/truncation with the offset parameter, but the schema already documents that behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a workflow note. No filler; the example earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives path format, return contents, and usage context. The offset/cut-marker behavior is captured in the parameter schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the description need not add much beyond the baseline. The path example ('02-wiki/nestjs/auth-guard.md') provides helpful formatting guidance beyond the schema's 'vault-relative path'.

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?

States the exact operation ('Reads a whole note') and object (vault-relative path with example), and adds what is included (frontmatter, resolved links, broken links). This clearly separates it from the vault_search snippet behavior.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use it after vault_search when the snippet is insufficient and before editing, naming a concrete alternative and two workflow triggers. This gives an agent decision rules rather than leaving usage to inference.

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