get_note

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

With no annotations, the description reveals critical behavior: Markdown body never repeats the title, rich:false indicates degraded format, attachments appear as placeholders never bytes, and format=html switches to raw HTML. This is thorough and goes well beyond a simple 'read' statement.

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 compact but information-dense. Every sentence serves a purpose: identification, return format, degraded behavior, attachment handling, and export alternative. No redundant phrases.

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?

For a read tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers identification methods, body format, failure mode (rich:false), attachment limitations, and a relevant alternative. It is entirely self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Although schema covers all four parameters, the description adds meaning: clarifies id over name, mentions 'ambiguity returns candidates' for name, and explains format options (markdown full-fidelity store read vs html exported body). This significantly enhances understanding of how parameters affect output.

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 'Read one note by id (preferred) or by title' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on reading a single note and explicitly names export_note for copying, avoiding overlap.

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?

Provides explicit preference ('by id (preferred)'), notes ambiguity handling ('ambiguity returns candidates'), and directs users to export_note for copying attachments to disk/vault. This constitutes clear when-to-use and an explicit alternative.

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