read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read a note,' implying a read-only operation, but omits details about error handling (e.g., missing file), default behaviors (e.g., which vault or path takes precedence), or any state 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?

While extremely short, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks front-loaded critical details and wastes the opportunity to provide minimal but essential context.

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, no annotations, three parameters with low schema coverage, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, parameter interactions, or usage scenarios.

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 low (33%) because only 'vault' has a description. The description does not explain the roles of 'file' and 'path', leaving ambiguity about how they are used or combined. It adds no value 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 'Read a note' provides a clear verb and resource, but it is too generic. Given sibling tools like 'daily_read', 'random_read', and 'template_read', it fails to distinguish which note it reads, offering no specificity about the source or context.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or distinctions from siblings like 'daily_read' or 'history_read'.

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