read_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return value (full markdown content), the source path format (vault/relative/path.md), and the filesystem path resolution (HOST_VAULT_PATH / source). This provides useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'read note' and implies a read-only operation.

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 three concise sentences with no redundant words. Each sentence contributes: what it does, the source format, and the path resolution. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently conveys all necessary information.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies input format and output content. It does not explicitly address error cases (e.g., missing note), but the output schema likely covers the return shape. This is adequate for the complexity level.

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% for the single 'source' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the expected format ('vault/relative/path.md') and its origin ('as returned by search_notes'), plus how the full path is resolved. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema definition.

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's purpose: 'Return the full markdown content of a note.' This is a specific verb+resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like delete_note, update_note, and list_notes. The mention of 'full markdown content' clarifies the output scope.

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 context by indicating the source format is 'as returned by search_notes', which guides the agent to first use search_notes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names (delete_note, move_note, etc.) are self-explanatory. This is clear context though not an explicit when/when-not.

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