get_note

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned data — notably that content is an AI summary and where the raw text lives per note_type — which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about read-only guarantees (only implied by 'get'), authentication/permissions, behavior for a missing or inaccessible id, or whether attachments/transcripts are always present, so the burden is only partly met.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the per-note-type field mapping is dense, high-value reference material rather than filler. It is somewhat long with markdown formatting, but nearly every line changes how an agent would interpret the response.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by explaining the key ambiguity in the return value (content vs. original text per note_type). That is the main trap for this tool. Remaining gaps — error behavior, presence guarantees for attachments/transcripts, and routing to the more specialized siblings — are modest but real.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the id and image_quality parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the decimal-string preference and the 'original' enum value. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, 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 (获取指定笔记的详细内容) and enumerates what is included: body, tags, attachments, audio transcript, web links. It is clear about what it returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the very similar siblings get_note_original, get_note_transcript, and get_note_attachments, all of which appear to return overlapping subsets of the same data.

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 field-semantics block gives a conditional rule for the 'read original text' case (check note_type, then select the matching field), which is genuinely useful. However, it gives no guidance on when to call this tool instead of get_note_original / get_note_transcript / get_note_attachments, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so tool-level selection is left to inference.

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