get_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects from the optional 'output_file' parameter (e.g., writing to disk), nor any authentication requirements or error conditions. The behavior is only minimally characterized.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It fails to explain the 'output_file' parameter, which is crucial for the agent to know whether to provide a value and what the consequences are. The description also omits any mention of prerequisites or error handling, making it insufficient for fully autonomous use.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly defines 'note_id' as the identifier (matching the phrase 'by its ID'), but it completely ignores the 'output_file' parameter—its purpose, format, or effect. This leaves the agent without enough information to correctly set the optional parameter.

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 action (retrieve) and the resource (note by its ID), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_notes or add_note. However, 'complete information' is somewhat vague and could be more specific about what fields are included, but the core purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many note-related siblings (e.g., search_notes, update_note). The description does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. This is insufficient for a tool in a large ecosystem.

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