Get Note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'owned' and 'plain-text' which are properties of the target note, not behavioral traits. It does not disclose return format, error behavior, or ownership verification, but the annotations mitigate the need for such detail. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence of six words, front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the annotations are robust. The description is minimal but adequate for an agent to understand the basic function. However, it does not explain the return value or any prerequisites (e.g., the note must exist), leaving minor gaps. For a getter with strong annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 input schema documents one parameter, note_id, as a UUID string. The description does not mention this parameter, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description does not compensate. However, the parameter name and format are self-explanatory, and the description's 'Get one' implies selecting a specific note by ID. The schema carries the semantic burden adequately for this simple case.

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 'Get one owned plain-text Note' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Note'), and further specifies 'owned' and 'plain-text' to clarify the scope. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_notes, create_note, and delete_note by indicating a single-note fetch operation.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it fetches a single note by ID, nor does it direct users to list_notes for browsing. The lack of usage context makes it harder for an agent to decide between this and similar note-related tools.

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