get_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reports 403 for non-ownership and 404 for non-existence, giving valuable error semantics. This goes beyond a simple 'get' and is sufficient 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the operation, and every sentence contributes useful information (action and error behavior). No fluff.

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, an output schema exists, and the description covers the key behavioral aspects (ownership, errors). It could mention return format, but the output schema handles that. Overall, it's complete for a single-note retrieval.

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 schema's note_id parameter has no description, so the tool description's 'by id' adds some context. However, it does not specify the format or constraints of the ID, leaving room for interpretation. For a single parameter, this minimal addition is adequate but not robust.

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 retrieves a single note by its ID, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notes and search_notes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the use case—when you have a note ID—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It provides context through error conditions but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling listing/search tools.

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