get_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (title + HTML) but says nothing about permissions (Apple Notes access), whether a missing ID errors, or whether fetching has side effects. For a zero-annotation read tool, this is thin.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then names the return payload. No filler. Slightly high because the return-payload clause is the only extra information and it is genuinely useful.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should specify access requirements and failure behavior (e.g., unknown ID). It covers the happy-path contract but leaves an agent without enough context for correct invocation in error or permission 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 100% and the note_id schema already explains the Core Data path format thoroughly. The description adds only the implication that note_id is required. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (读取/get) and resource (Apple Notes 中指定 ID 的笔记), plus the return payload (标题和 HTML 内容). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from search_articles or list_articles, the closest siblings, but the specificity of '指定 ID' makes the read-by-id intent clear.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not say to use this only when a note_id is already known, nor point to search_articles or list_articles for discovery. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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