Get Alt note info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It makes the read-only retrieval intent clear and specifies which subset of note data is returned (title, date, status), which is useful. However, it does not mention behavior on missing/invalid IDs, permissions, or the exact response format.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and the key returned fields, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the input, the operation, and the expected information categories. Some details such as response shape or error behavior are absent, but the core calling context is clear.

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%, so the schema already documents noteId as the Alt note ID. The description only repeats the need for a note ID and adds the context that it returns basic info, but it does not add new parameter-level 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 states a specific action (get) applied to a note resource identified by note ID, and enumerates the returned fields (title, date, status). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_note_transcript or list_note_components, which concern different data or operations.

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 it should be used when you have a note ID and need basic note metadata. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_notes, list_recent_notes, or get_note_transcript, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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