lipi_read_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a read and that it returns the full Note with content and ETag (updatedAt), which signals both non-mutating behavior and the response focus. It does not cover error cases, but for a simple read-by-id tool this is adequate.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences. The action and resource are front-loaded, followed by the return payload. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete: it names the operation, the lookup key, and the return value highlights. It omits not-found/error behavior, but the low complexity makes that a minor gap.

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 coverage for the only parameter, id, is 100% and includes 'Note id (UUID)'. The description merely echoes 'by id' without adding new semantic meaning, so the schema already provides the necessary parameter detail.

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 a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('a single note'), and the lookup method ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling lipi_read_note_by_name and from listing/creating/updating tools.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you have a note id and want a single note. It does not explicitly mention the alternative lipi_read_note_by_name, but the 'by id' qualifier implies the appropriate selection among siblings.

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