Show Git Note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-obvious storage location (refs/notes/lognexus) and that the return value is a parsed JSON payload, which clearly frames this as a read. It does not say what happens when no note exists on the commit, whether the ref can be overridden, or what the payload's shape is.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action and the exact ref being read before the default behavior. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what the parsed payload contains or how a missing note is surfaced. The ref location and default are covered, but the return contract remains opaque.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single commitRef parameter, so the schema already documents accepted forms (SHA, branch, tag, HEAD) and the default. The description's 'Defaults to HEAD' merely restates the schema; no additional semantics are contributed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read'), a precisely named resource (the LogNexus Git Note under refs/notes/lognexus), and the result ('parsed JSON payload'). The read-only nature distinguishes it implicitly from the write-side sibling lognexus_note_attach, though it never names that sibling.

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?

'Defaults to HEAD' gives a usable calling convention, but the description never explains when to reach for this tool rather than a sibling like lognexus_note_attach, lognexus_state_get, or lognexus_timeline. Usage is implied by the verb 'Read' rather than spelled out.

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