read_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Read') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. While it hints at retrieval by identifier, it doesn't clarify if this is a safe read operation or has side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action and key parameter. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), the description's gaps in parameter semantics and behavioral transparency are partially mitigated. However, with 4 parameters and no annotations, it should provide more context on usage and parameters to be fully complete, resulting in an average score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'identifier' (title or permalink), ignoring 'project,' 'page,' and 'page_size.' This partial coverage fails to explain the purpose or usage of most parameters, adding minimal value beyond 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 clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('a markdown note'), specifying it can be accessed 'by title or permalink.' This distinguishes it from generic read operations but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'view_note' or 'read_content,' keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'view_note,' 'search_notes,' or 'read_content.' The description implies usage for retrieving notes but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with siblings.

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