notes_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns full note content (potentially HTML), shows associated entities, creator/last editor, and pinned status. This is comprehensive for a read operation, though it does not mention any side effects or authorization requirements (which are minimal for a GET).

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 a clear opening, workflow tips, and common use cases. It is slightly repetitive (e.g., 'Returns full note content' appears twice) but overall efficient. The information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description remarkably captures all necessary details: note content, metadata, creator, timestamps, entities, pinned status, and HTML warning. It fully explains what the tool returns and its typical use cases, leaving no gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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?

There is only one parameter (id) and the schema already includes a description ('ID of the note to retrieve') with 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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?

The description clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific note', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like notes_list (which lists notes) and notes_create by focusing on a single note's details. The additional metadata described (creator, timestamps, entities) reinforces its purpose.

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 provides workflow tips and common use cases, such as retrieving a note before updating. It gives an example call with { 'id': 123 }. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., use notes_list for browsing notes). The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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