read_note

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

The description discloses that notes larger than 100KB are automatically truncated, a key behavioral trait. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds value beyond the schema. Could mention return format but is adequate.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a critical behavioral note. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., plain text, markdown). Truncation behavior is noted, but additional details like error handling or encoding are absent. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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_path. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 reads the full content of a note, using the specific verb 'Reads' and resource 'note'. It distinguishes from siblings like create_note, delete_note, etc., by focusing on reading.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_notes). No exclusion criteria or context provided. For a simple read operation, this may be acceptable but still lacks explicit direction.

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