Read note

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

readOnlyHint already tells the agent this is non-destructive, and the description reinforces it by saying 'Read'. It adds that the full markdown content is returned, but doesn't describe error behavior or what happens for missing or invalid paths. No contradiction.

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 dense sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the path-format details are packed efficiently.

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 one-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint set and complete schema coverage, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly. The absence of an output schema is compensated by 'full markdown content', which makes the return value obvious.

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 already documents path with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning: a concrete example, the source of the path (from list_notes), and the fact that .md is optional.

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 ('Read'), the resource ('one note'), and the scope ('full markdown content'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_frontmatter (metadata only) and search_notes (search behavior).

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?

It gives clear practical guidance: path comes from list_notes and the .md suffix is optional. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but for a simple read tool this context is sufficient.

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