get_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the note text is returned whole rather than truncated, and the result includes the note's type and its attachment. With no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is the right kind of added value.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action. The second sentence is longer than a typical definition but earns its place by justifying why the full text matters, though it leans slightly into narrative.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content (full text, type, attachment) and the reason notes exist. Return-value expectations are adequately set, and no auth or edge-case caveats appear necessary.

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 is documented in-schema as a 'Handle or gramps_id of the note.' The description adds no format, prefix, or resolution guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Read one note') plus the scope of what comes back ('in full, with its type and what it is attached to'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the generic sibling get_object, which plausibly also retrieves notes by handle.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. The agent is left to infer that get_note is the note-specific equivalent of get_object/get_person.

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