read_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload ("complete markdown content"), which matters since there is no output schema, but says nothing about behavior when the path is missing, permission/auth needs, or note-size limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool, though it is too terse to reach the top of the range.

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 one-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core (reads full markdown content). It omits error/not-found behavior and any hint of how large vaults or missing paths are handled.

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 100% and the single path parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the .md extension requirement. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ("Lê") and resource ("conteúdo markdown completo de uma nota do vault"), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_active_file or search_notes, which is a minor gap.

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 get_active_file (same content, no path needed) or search_notes. The agent must infer that a known path means read_note, which is reasonable but unstated.

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