notes_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if noteId is invalid), or whether it returns partial data if properties/associations are omitted. For a tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get details of a specific note') earns its place by conveying the core action and target. There's no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, how optional parameters modify the response, or error conditions. For a tool that retrieves structured data with filtering options, more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (noteId, properties, associations) are documented in the schema. The description only implies noteId is needed ('specific note') but doesn't explain what properties or associations are, their formats, or how they affect the output. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like notes_list or notes_search by specifying retrieval of a single note's details rather than listing or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with notes_batch_read, which might also retrieve note details in bulk.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a noteId), when to prefer notes_list for browsing or notes_search for filtering, or when notes_batch_read might be more efficient for multiple notes. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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