get-note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: without a folder, homonyms in other folders/accounts may shadow the target note. This goes beyond the generic 'get' operation and adds valuable context, though it doesn't mention read-only nature or error handling, which are less critical given the output schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and efficiently communicates the primary purpose and the optional parameter's rationale. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, this description covers the essential purpose and behavioral nuance. The folder scoping warning is especially valuable for avoiding pitfalls. No additional context seems necessary.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains that 'title' is an exact match and that 'folder' scopes the lookup, including the shadowing caveat. This provides meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema field names and types.

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 'Get a note's full content and details by exact title' with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('note'), and qualifier ('full content and details', 'exact title'). This clearly differentiates from siblings like search-notes (searching) and list-notes (listing), as it focuses on retrieval by exact title.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need full content by exact title. It also provides guidance for the optional folder parameter, advising to pass it to avoid homonym shadowing. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, which would earn a 5.

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