lipi_read_note_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the HTTP method (GET /v1/notes-by-name?name=) and the read-only intent via 'Read'. However, it does not cover behavior when the note is missing (e.g., 404) or any response/return details.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the backing endpoint, and the primary use case. The information is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential call semantics, endpoint, and a motivating use case. The only notable gap is behavior on non-existent notes, which is minor for this simple tool.

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 is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds practical meaning on top by illustrating valid name formats ('2083-05-12' or 'My Note'), which clarifies what 'name' actually looks like in practice.

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') and resource ('a note') with a distinguishing lookup key ('by name/path basename'), and gives concrete examples ('2083-05-12' or 'My Note'). The dedicated GET endpoint and 'Handy for [[wikilink]] resolution' make it distinguishable from the sibling lipi_read_note without requiring the schema.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool—resolving [[wikilink]] references—which strongly implies the by-name use case. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name an alternative like lipi_read_note for other read scenarios.

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