get_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and partially succeeds by listing comprehensive returned content (attachments, transcriptions, etc.), implying a rich read operation. However, it omits critical behavioral aspects such as error handling for invalid IDs, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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 consists of a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core purpose followed by a concise enumeration of return content types without redundant phrasing or wasted words. Every element earns its place by conveying specific information about the operation's scope and output richness.

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 simple two-parameter structure with complete schema documentation and no output schema, the description adequately explains what data is retrieved by enumerating content types, sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's utility. While error handling and authentication details are missing, the overall completeness is reasonable for a straightforward retrieval operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with both parameters ('id' and 'image_quality') fully documented in the schema itself, establishing the baseline score of 3. The description adds no supplemental information about parameter semantics or formats, but this is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 the specific verb '获取' (get/retrieve) with resource '笔记' (note) and enumerates detailed content types returned (body, tags, attachments, audio transcriptions, web links), distinguishing it from sibling mutation tools like delete_note or update_note. However, it does not explicitly characterize the operation as read-only to absolutely clarify its distinction from state-modifying siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_notes for browsing multiple notes or save_note for creation, nor does it mention prerequisites like obtaining the note ID from list_notes. This absence of contextual decision-making criteria leaves agents without explicit boundaries for tool selection.

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