read_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses verification via AppleScript and outlines the return fields, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not specify error behavior, permissions, or side effects from the verification step, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 well-structured with headings and a concise bullet list, making it easy to scan. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the bullet list could be integrated into prose for even more brevity.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 required params, no enums), the description covers the core functionality and output fields. It lists relevant metadata and content. However, it does not elaborate on the 'AppleScript verification' process, which could affect understanding of reliability or platform constraints.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the input schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the verification role of 'note_name' and the primary key usage of 'note_id', but adds minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 specifies the verb 'Read' and resource 'note', with distinguishing details like 'primary key ID' and 'AppleScript verification'. It differentiates from sibling tools such as 'read_folder' or 'search_notes' by emphasizing ID-based access and verification.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_notes' or 'list_all_notes'. It does not mention when not to use it or provide context on prerequisites, such as needing to know the note ID beforehand.

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