Read note

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the limitation regarding binary files but does not mention error handling, size limits, permissions, or return format. Somewhat transparent but incomplete.

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?

Two concise sentences. First states purpose, second provides important constraint and alternative. No redundant information.

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 simplicity of the tool and lack of output schema, the description covers the primary use case and a key limitation. However, it fails to address the 'projectId' parameter and does not specify the return format or potential errors.

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 has 2 parameters, with schema coverage at 50% (only 'path' has a description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for 'path' and does not mention 'projectId' at all. Does not compensate for the undocumented 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?

Clearly states verb 'Read', resource 'text file's content', and means 'by its vault path'. Distinguishes from binary files, which are not handled, and from siblings like delete_note and write_note.

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?

Explicitly says when not to use (binary files) and suggests alternative ('use the web/REST download'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other read-related siblings like list_notes, but it is clear enough for a simple read operation.

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