read_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation reads and returns full content, which implies a non-destructive action. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., missing note), permissions, or any limitations, leaving some behavioral details uncovered.

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 extremely concise, using clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes necessary information, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple single-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies the input format and return value. It could be slightly richer by noting error cases or constraints, but the simplicity of the tool makes the current coverage adequate.

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 input schema offers only a path string with no description. The description compensates fully by explaining that path is relative to the vault root and provides a concrete example. This adds significant meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states 'Read any note from the vault,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_issue (read an issue) and list_notes/search_vault (which list or search rather than read full content).

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 usage when you need to retrieve the full content of a specific note given its path. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like list_notes or search_vault, nor does it provide any exclusions.

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