read_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds the constraint that the vault must be registered and that the note is Markdown. This is useful context but does not elaborate on error behavior or response format, so it provides moderate added 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the core function.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., raw Markdown, parsed content, frontmatter). For a simple read operation, the description is adequate but incomplete regarding output expectations. The two required parameters are straightforward but lack semantic detail.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undefined parameters. It only says 'from a registered vault' which indirectly relates to the vault parameter, but it does not explain path semantics (e.g., relative path, extension, case sensitivity). The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb (read), resource (one Markdown note), and scope (from a registered vault). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_notes, search_notes, and get_frontmatter by emphasizing a single note read.

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 implies usage for reading a specific note by vault and path, but does not explicitly state when to use this function versus alternatives like search_notes or list_notes, nor does it mention any preconditions beyond a registered vault.

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