get_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an error for non-existent note IDs and specifies the fields returned (summary fields plus body, createdDate, categories). This gives a clear picture of the operation's outcome and failure mode for a read tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, then usage, then return details. Each sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers the return value ('all summary fields plus body, createdDate, and categories') and the error condition. It is complete for its scope.

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% and the single parameter note_id is well-documented in the schema with a description and constraints. The description adds context about using IDs from list_notes or search_notes, but this is largely redundant with the schema's '(e.g., from list_notes or search_notes)', so it provides minimal additional value.

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 uses 'Get full details of a single note' which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by saying 'Use this after list_notes or search_notes to read the complete note content', clearly separating it from listing or searching tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('after list_notes or search_notes') and also mentions that an error is returned if the note ID does not exist. It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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