get_active_note

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it fetches content, which hints at a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention side effects, permission requirements, return format, or error behavior when no active note exists.

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 immediately conveys the core action and target. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose. It could mention what happens when no note is active or how to determine this, but for this low complexity level, the current text is reasonably complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly does not attempt to add parameter information, and the baseline of 4 applies for parameter-free tools.

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 'Get' and the resource 'currently active note', and specifies the content type as 'markdown content', making the purpose specific. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_note, though the 'currently active' qualifier provides useful context.

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 intended usage is implied: use this when you need the content of the active note. Yet there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as get_note or search_notes, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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