Get Note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly signals a read-only operation ('Retrieve') and describes pagination behavior, which helps an agent understand it may receive partial content with limit/offset. It does not discuss error cases or side effects, but for a read tool the core behavioral traits are covered.

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. It states the action, resource, and key pagination behavior in a compact way that is easy to parse.

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 straightforward read tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could be more complete by explicitly noting that full content may require multiple paginated calls and by referencing sibling tools, but the current definition is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains rel_path, limit_lines, and offset_line. The description's mention of 'line number pagination' adds conceptual context but not new parameter-level details, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a clear resource ('full markdown content of a specific note'), and a distinctive mechanism ('line number pagination'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools search_vault and sync_vault, which are clearly different operations.

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 the tool should be used when you know the exact note path and need its full content, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over search_vault or sync_vault. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so guidance is only implicit.

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