Get Notes

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: notes are treated as secret output, value is null unless reveal=true and NOREVEAL is not active. This discloses the conditional nature of the output, which is valuable for agent decision-making.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: state operation, reveal behavioral nuance, and give usage tip. No wasted words; concise and front-loaded.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, behavioral nuance, and usage tip. It could mention relationship to siblings or provide more details on the NOREVEAL mechanism, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only tool.

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 descriptions are already clear. The description adds extra meaning by stating 'Notes are treated as secret output,' explaining the reveal parameter's purpose, and reinforcing the term ambiguity issue. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get item notes matched by bw get notes for a search term,' specifying verb, resource, and search-based retrieval. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like keychain_get_item or keychain_search_items, which might also return notes in broader contexts.

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?

Description advises 'prefer an exact item id when possible' to avoid ambiguity, providing some usage guidance. But it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_item vs get_notes), nor does it give explicit exclusions or context.

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