get_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read that returns markdown content, which implies no mutation. However, it does not mention behavior when the note is missing or the path is invalid, and 'relative path' is left imprecise.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and outcome, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool and the output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return structure. Still, it lacks guidance on error cases and on choosing this tool over search_notes, leaving a small but real gap in situational completeness.

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 schema provides almost no semantic help: the only parameter is 'path' with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds that the path is relative, which is useful, but it does not specify relative to what, whether an extension is required, or the expected path format.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('the markdown content of a note'), and identifies the key selection criterion ('by relative path'). This clearly separates it from listing, searching, creating, and updating tools in the sibling list.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you have a note's relative path and want its markdown content. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_notes or list_permanent_notes, nor does it mention that search_notes is the alternative when the path is unknown.

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