Read a note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing that reads come straight from disk, are never clipped, and that the returned hash covers the whole file rather than just the requested range. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the core behavior, the key non-clipping guarantee, and the relationship to recall and edit. The most important scoping information is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the main calling scenarios, line-range capability, disk behavior, and output hash semantics. Minor gaps remain around exact line-range rules and response shape, but an agent has enough to call it correctly in its primary contexts.

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 path parameter is richly described in the schema (relative path, recall return value, wikilink forms, heading narrowing), and the description mentions whole-file or line-range reading. However, start_line and end_line have no schema descriptions and the description does not clarify defaults, inclusivity, or interaction with heading narrowing, leaving some ambiguity for a low-coverage schema.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: read a Markdown file from the notes folder, either whole or by line range. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming its role relative to ragdown_recall hits and ragdown_edit's base_hash, so an agent can tell it apart from recall, list, and edit.

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 gives explicit contexts for use: seeing context around a ragdown_recall hit, following a wikilink, and obtaining a hash for ragdown_edit. It does not spell out exclusions versus every sibling, but the relevant alternatives are clearly named and the intended use is unambiguous.

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