read_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly frames the operation as a read, clarifies that the full contents are returned, and defines the path format. It does not discuss error behavior for missing paths, but for a simple one-parameter read this is a minor gap.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action, names the target, and includes a useful example; every element 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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly how to identify the note and what operation will be performed; nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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?

The input schema only defines 'path' as a required string with no description. The tool description adds essential meaning: the path is vault-relative and gives a concrete example. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 ('Read'), resource ('a note'), and the exact selection mechanism ('vault-relative path'). The example 'People/Alice.md' makes the meaning concrete, and 'full contents' helps distinguish this from listing or searching notes.

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 makes the usage context clear: call this when you have a vault-relative path and need the full note contents. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can route to it correctly among the sibling tools.

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