read_note

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by warning that notes are world-readable and world-writable. This informs the agent that the content being read is shared and not private, which is valuable security-relevant context.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the core action, and then adds essential context about durability, room persistence, and world-readability/writability. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 read operation with two fully documented parameters and readOnlyHint=true, the description provides sufficient context about what notes are and their sharing implications. It does not describe return format or missing-note behavior, but the absence of an output schema makes those omissions less critical.

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 both namespace and key documented and constrained by patterns. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a durable note.' It distinguishes notes from rooms by explicitly stating that notes outlive rooms and serve as cross-session state storage, which separates read_note from siblings like read_room and read_docs.

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 gives clear context for when to use notes: durable state that persists between sessions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the durable-vs-room contrast provides enough situational guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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