note_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Retrieve a note by key' which implies a read operation, but it does not mention if the tool is idempotent, what happens if the key is missing (error vs null), whether it's safe to invoke repeatedly, or any side effects. There is no contradiction with annotations as none exist.

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 extremely short at four words, one sentence. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While this is concise, it may be too terse for a tool with no annotations, but for a simple single-parameter retrieval tool, it is adequately concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description provides the bare minimum. It does not specify the return format, success/error behavior, or whether partial keys are accepted. For a retrieval tool without an output schema, more context about what is returned would help the agent use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'key' parameter as 'Note key to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, merely restating the parameter's role. However, the description and schema together are minimal and leave ambiguity about the key's format (e.g., is it a UUID, path, or something else). The agent gains no semantic clarity beyond what's in the schema.

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 'Retrieve a note by key' which clearly identifies the verb (Retrieve) and resource (note) and the method (by key). It is distinct from siblings like note_set or note_list, but does not elaborate on what retrieval means or whether it's a full or partial read. It's not a tautology, but it's minimal.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like note_list or word_read. It does not state any preconditions (e.g., key must exist), nor scenarios where it should or should not be used. The context signals show several sibling tools, but no differentiation is offered.

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