read_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output format for checklist items (◦, ✓, ⁃) and nesting depth, and notes the exclusive access to checked state. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the verb 'Read' and context imply no side effects.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value—covering purpose, output formatting, and unique capability. 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (full content, checklist markers, nesting depth). It also provides a key contextual note about checked state. Minor gaps like error behavior are not critical for this simple 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'note' parameter (exact name or id, uniqueness). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so the 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's function ('Read a note's full content'), identifies the specific resource (note), and distinguishes it from siblings by highlighting the checklist marker representation and the fact that it is the only way to observe checked state.

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 when to use this tool: whenever full note content or checked state is needed. It explicitly says 'This is the only way to observe checked state,' which guides selection over alternatives like read_checklist. However, it does not name alternatives directly or state 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.