Read a note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses a security boundary (no reads outside the vault, symlink escapes refused) and a side effect that escaped files are not indexed or searchable. It omits error/return behavior details, so it falls short of full transparency.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded and information-dense with no filler. The path constraint and the follow-up action are distinct, earning their sentences, though the middle sentence is somewhat packed.

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 single-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers the addressing scheme, a security boundary, and the intended follow-up action. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the failure/return shape is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% with a single documented parameter, so baseline would be 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying where the path comes from (search results) and constraining it to vault-relative, which is meaningful for correct invocation.

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 (raw markdown of a note) plus the exact addressing scheme (vault-relative path). This clearly distinguishes it from lore_search or lore_context_pack, which locate rather than return raw content.

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?

Gives explicit context for the input ('as returned in search results') and a follow-up step ('after reading a note that answered the question, call lore_mark_used'). It does not, however, state when to prefer this over lore_search or lore_context_pack.

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