bardo_note_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral details: 'always the current version — any id from this note's history still resolves here' and 'the response's total_length tells you how much more there is'. These go beyond annotations and help the agent understand exactly what to expect.

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 sentences, no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds value. It is appropriately sized for 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?

The description covers the main fetch action, version behavior, linked notes preview, and pagination. Given 6 parameters, this is fairly complete. However, the response format is not described, and since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the linked notes preview or total_length would increase completeness.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains offset and length well, and implies links_limit and links_offset via 'preview of its directly linked notes'. But it does not explain session_token or note_id beyond the title. The note_id description adds value ('any id from this note's history still resolves here'), but session_token is left undocumented. Overall, partial compensation.

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 starts with 'Fetch one note's full text' which is a specific verb+resource. It also mentions 'plus a preview of its directly linked notes', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like bardo_note_history or bardo_notes_list. The purpose is immediately clear and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on using offset/length for pagination: 'Omit offset/length for the whole text in one call; pass them to read a large note in bounded slices'. It also clarifies that any historical id resolves to the current version. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like bardo_note_history, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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