Read Note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' correctly conveys a non-mutating operation and it discloses what is returned (frontmatter + body), but it says nothing about behavior when a note is missing, vault resolution, or permissions.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity contributes to the gaps scored elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but two undocumented parameters, zero annotations, and no error/edge-case context leave the agent without enough to invoke this confidently beyond the trivial case.

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% and the description mentions neither parameter. The meaning of 'vault' (default null, presumably default vault) and the expected format of 'relative_path' (relative to what?) are left entirely unexplained at the call site.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (one note) and even names what is returned (frontmatter and body). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_notes, search_vault, or get_node, but 'one note' implicitly scopes it to single-note retrieval.

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 word 'one' hints at single-note retrieval, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative named (e.g., search_vault for locating a note, list_notes for enumeration). An agent must infer the routing.

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