get_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the read-only nature via the verb 'get', but does not disclose behavior such as error handling when the note_id is not found, pagination (not applicable), or any prerequisites like authentication. It adds minimal context beyond what is inherently obvious from the name and schema.

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 extremely concise at two lines, with the core purpose front-loaded. The 'Args' section is neatly structured and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials. It would benefit from a mention of when to use list_notes as an alternative, but the shortfall is minor. For a straightforward getter, this is sufficient.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description's 'note_id: The Nimble note ID' provides some additional meaning by indicating that the ID is a Nimble-specific identifier. However, it does not elaborate on format, uniqueness, or relationship to other objects. It implicitly confirms the parameter is required, which is already shown in 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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single note by ID.' It specifies the key (ID), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_notes (which lists multiple) and update_note/delete_note (which modify). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 list_notes should be used when needing multiple notes or that other note operations exist. The only hint is the phrase 'single note', but it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or name alternatives.

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