read_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose real behavior — max_chars bounds output and truncation is explicitly marked — which is genuinely useful. It omits, however, what happens on a missing/invalid path or non-text file, and gives no hint about encoding or result metadata, leaving notable gaps for a read 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the one behavioral nuance that matters (truncation). Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the description covers the path source and truncation behavior. The main residual gap is error/missing-file behavior, which keeps it from a 5 for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 must compensate, and it largely does: max_chars is explained (bounds the result, truncation is marked) and file_path is defined as a relative path sourced from semantic_search/list_notes. What's missing is what the path is relative to (vault root) and any default/limit semantics for max_chars beyond null.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (vault note) plus the lookup key (relative path), which cleanly separates it from write_note, update_note, and the snippet-returning semantic_search. An agent can tell what this returns (full text) versus a listing or search tool.

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 parenthetical '(path from semantic_search/list_notes)' tells the agent the intended workflow: obtain a path from a search or listing tool, then read here. It gives clear context but names no explicit exclusion or alternative condition, so it falls just short of a 5.

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