get_note

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description does not add extra context beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits, response format, or content limits. Score is baseline as annotations cover safety.

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 two sentences, each valuable and front-loaded. No wasted words, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter), rich annotations, and clear sibling differentiation, the description is nearly complete. No output schema exists, but the return value (full content) is implied. A minor gap is lack of details on what 'full content' includes (e.g., formatting, size limits).

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of note_id. The tool description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves 'full content of a note by ID from Simplenote', which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling search_notes, meeting the highest standard.

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 explicitly provides guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use search_notes when you don't know the exact note ID.' This is a clear usage directive with an alternative named.

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