get_note_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only notes the xsec_token requirement, omitting authentication needs (especially given sibling check_cookie), return format, and error behaviors. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 highly concise, with no filler. It communicates the action and a critical parameter requirement in just a few words, earning full marks for succinctness.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits authentication requirements (relevant given sibling check_cookie), response structure, and edge cases. The xsec_token note is helpful but insufficient for reliable autonomous use.

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?

The description adds crucial meaning to the parameter beyond the bare schema: it specifies that the url must contain xsec_token. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable, though it does not cover other potential parameter nuances.

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 tool retrieves note content ('获取笔记内容'), using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_note_comments, which focus on comments.

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 a critical usage prerequisite: the URL must include xsec_token. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to choose this tool over siblings; usage context is implied rather than stated.

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