read_note

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions reading full content but omits return format, authentication needs, and the fact that the schema has no parameters contradicting the 'by name or ID' claim.

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?

A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

The description does not cover return values (no output schema), and the parameter mismatch leaves the agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool. For a simple tool, this is insufficient.

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 has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. However, the description introduces misleading parameter semantics by stating 'by name or ID' despite no parameters in the schema, which subtracts value.

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 'Reads' and resource 'note', and specifies the method 'by name or ID', which distinguishes it from siblings like list_notes. However, the description implies parameters that do not exist in the input schema, causing inconsistency.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_notes or search_notes. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection.

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