read_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'read' conveys a non-destructive operation, and 'from the brain directory' adds scoping context. However, it does not disclose what happens on missing paths, whether content is returned raw or parsed, or any error behavior — acceptable for a simple read but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the core action plus resource scope are the first things an agent sees.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it names the operation, the resource, and the directory. Still, it omits usage context relative to siblings and path format details, which matters more given the 0% schema 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'path' parameter. It adds meaning by indicating that path refers to a note file within the brain directory, but it does not specify path format, absolute vs relative, or accepted file extensions.

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 uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('a single note file from the brain directory'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tools search_notes and list_notes. An agent can immediately tell this fetches one file's content rather than enumerating or searching notes.

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 phrase 'a single note file' implies this tool is for fetching one specific file, contrasting with search/list siblings. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusion criteria, or alternative tool names are given, leaving the usage context implied rather than stated.

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