Read note

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real behavioral facts: line numbers count the whole file including frontmatter, max_tokens cuts at a section/paragraph boundary and returns a continuation line, images return as images and binaries as documents, and a missing note raises an error.

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?

Front-loaded with the identity (what it reads, from what forms) before slicing options and the error/alternative note. Dense and largely waste-free, though the sentence about images/binaries sits slightly apart from the main reading flow.

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 9-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers input forms, slicing controls, truncation behavior, and metadata-only mode. Only the text/json output_format switch and include_frontmatter semantics are left unexplained.

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 67% schema coverage, the description goes beyond it by explaining that line counts include frontmatter (a semantics the schema omits), how max_tokens truncation behaves, and that include_content=false yields the checksum expected by bm_write/bm_edit. Minor gap: output_format and include_frontmatter are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (Basic Memory note or file) and enumerates the accepted identifier forms (path, permalink, memory:// URL, exact title), so an agent can match inputs to it immediately. It also distinguishes itself from the discovery sibling by routing missing notes to bm_search.

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?

Gives a clear condition for the alternative ('A missing note is an error: find notes with bm_search') and explains the include_content=false mode as the checksum-fetch path used by bm_write/bm_edit. It does not, however, disambiguate against lookalike siblings such as read_note, view_note, or read_content.

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