notlai_get_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation but does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior (e.g., missing note), rate limits, or what 'full content' includes. The behavioral disclosure is superficial.

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 12 words with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 simple get operation with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not specify the return format or what fields constitute 'full content', which could require supplementary documentation.

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% and the schema's description for noteId already includes format and source (ULID, from notlai_list_notes). The tool description adds no additional meaning; thus baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and the resource 'full content of a specific note by its ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like notlai_list_notes (which lists metadata) and notlai_update_note/notlai_delete_note by specifying it retrieves the full content of a single note.

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 when full note content is needed but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., notlai_list_notes for metadata) nor when not to use. It provides minimal guidance.

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