get_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses how checklists are represented (with real ticked state) and that attachments appear only as placeholders because files are not read. This is concrete, useful transparency beyond the schema. It does not mention error cases or return of metadata, but the core behavior is well covered.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and returning format, followed by important caveats about checklists and attachments. Every sentence earns its place with concrete, non-redundant information. No fluff or repetition.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains the return format (Markdown body, checkbox states, attachment placeholders) sufficiently for an agent to understand what to expect. It does not mention whether note metadata is returned, but 'in full' implies completion. Minor gaps like error handling exist but are not critical for a read tool with one parameter.

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 parameter note_id, which already explains its provenance (from list_notes or search_notes). The tool description adds no further parameter details, but it is unnecessary given the schema covers it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the 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 verb 'Read' and resource 'one note' are specific, and 'in full' with 'body as Markdown' clarifies scope. The description distinguishes this from listing or search tools by focusing on full content retrieval, so an agent can easily tell it from siblings like list_notes or search_notes.

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 the complete note body, especially since it mentions reading 'one note in full' as opposed to listing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when you need to browse summaries, use list_notes). The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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