technocore_note_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates that this is a retrieval operation. It does not disclose return format, behavior on missing keys, namespace semantics, or potential errors, leaving behavioral traits largely unspecified.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the verb and object appear immediately. It is efficiently sized for a simple getter and every word adds meaning.

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 two-parameter getter, the combination of this description and the input schema is minimally adequate: an agent knows what operation to perform and which arguments are required. However, with no output schema or annotations, the absence of return/error behavior and any link to sibling tools leaves some contextual gaps.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions ('Key to retrieve', 'Namespace for the note'), so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description adds only the general context of key-value storage and does not deepen parameter meaning, matching the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a note value from key-value storage'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ``note_list`` or ``read``, which could also be retrieval-oriented, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives; it does not mention ``note_set``, ``note_list``, or ``read`` at all. The only implied usage is 'when you need to retrieve a stored value', but no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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