get_note

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

The description discloses that the description field is normalized from HTML to Markdown, which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or free of side effects, relying on the verb 'get' to imply idempotency. With no annotations provided, the description could be more explicit.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence conveys purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral detail. Every part earns its place.

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 (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the purpose and a notable transformation. It lacks mention of error handling (e.g., note not found), but is otherwise complete for a single-resource get operation.

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?

The only parameter is 'note_id' (integer), which is self-explanatory from the schema. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond 'by ID', and schema description coverage is 0%. The simplicity of the parameter justifies a baseline score of 3.

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 verb ('get'), resource ('note'), and that it retrieves full details by ID. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like search_notes or create_note.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_notes or get_note vs. other get tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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