view_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions viewing as a 'formatted artifact', which implies a read-only operation with enhanced presentation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'formatted' entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly, though it could benefit from more detail given the complexity of the tool.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings or behavioral traits, though the output schema might cover return values. For a tool with multiple parameters and no annotation support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about parameters like 'identifier', 'project', 'page', or 'page_size', failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves all four parameters semantically undefined, hindering proper tool invocation.

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 the tool 'View a note as a formatted artifact for better readability', which specifies the verb 'view' and resource 'note'. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'read_note' or 'read_content', leaving the exact differentiation vague. The mention of 'formatted artifact' adds some specificity but isn't fully clarifying.

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 such as 'read_note' or 'search_notes'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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