read_notes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format (notes, errors), behavior for missing/too large files, and that path traversal errors fail the whole call. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but for a read tool this 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 that front-load the main purpose and efficiently add critical behavioral details. 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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers input format, return structure, and error modes. Missing potential limit on number of paths, but otherwise thorough.

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 parameter description 'Note paths (.md optional)'. The description adds that paths are relative and explains error handling per path, providing valuable context beyond the schema.

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 notes by path, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like search_notes and get_frontmatter by focusing on reading by relative path.

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 explains when to use this tool (to read notes by path) and provides nuanced guidance on error handling: one bad path doesn't fail the batch but path traversal does. It implicitly suggests alternatives like search_notes for content search, though not explicitly.

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