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. It states the tool retrieves content and metadata, but lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., if the note doesn't exist), rate limits, or output format. The 'legacy' qualifier hints at potential deprecation but is vague, leaving critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The 'legacy' qualifier adds context without unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating functionality from caveats.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what 'metadata' includes, the return format, or error conditions. With 1 parameter and 100% schema coverage, the basics are covered, but behavioral and output details are missing, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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 the 'path' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the single parameter.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific note'), specifying it retrieves both content and metadata. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_notes' or 'get_recent_notes' by focusing on a single note. However, the 'legacy' qualifier is vague and doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives like 'read_file'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for retrieving a single note, but it doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'read_file' or 'get_daily_note'. The 'legacy' hint is insufficient as actionable guidance.

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