노트 읽기

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return contents (raw text, parsed frontmatter, body), which adds transparency. However, it does not mention side effects (though 'returns' implies read-only), error behavior, or permissions. Some behavioral context is provided, but not comprehensive.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential information without redundancy or filler. Every word adds value.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the return structure clearly. It lacks additional context such as error handling or path format nuances, but for a basic read operation, it is sufficiently complete. A small deduction for not mentioning what happens if the note does not exist.

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 100% for the single 'path' parameter, so the schema already explains it. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('반환한다' - returns) and the resource (노트 - note), and specifies exactly what is returned: raw text, parsed frontmatter, and body. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note, update_note, search_notes, and list_directory.

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 implies usage: read a specific note by path. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_notes for finding notes), nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not explicit.

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