read_note

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that the operation reads and returns full content, which implies a non-mutating read, but it does not disclose behavior for missing files, filename formats, or potential truncation. It provides basic transparency but not deep behavioral context.

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 filler. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and the meaning of its key parameter.

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, has only one required parameter, and includes an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The main missing element is guidance on what happens when the note does not exist or how filenames are resolved, but overall the description is adequate for correct invocation.

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 only names the parameter 'name' with no description, so the description's phrase 'par son nom de fichier' adds crucial meaning by clarifying that the parameter is a filename. It does not specify whether a full path or extension is required, but for a single-parameter tool this is reasonably sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lit et renvoie' (reads and returns) with a clear resource: the full content of a Markdown note identified by filename. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notes and search_notes, which would not return file 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?

The description clearly implies usage when the caller already knows the note's filename, which is the key selection criterion. It does not explicitly mention list_notes or search_notes as alternatives for discovering filenames, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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