hedgedoc_note_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return JSON structure with types and ISO timestamp format, and states it requires no authentication. However, it does not explicitly confirm zero side effects, though 'Get' implies read-only.

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 compact three sentences: purpose, return format, and auth requirement. Every sentence conveys necessary information without redundancy, earning a maximum.

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 simple single-parameter nature and absence of an output schema, the description generously covers what is returned. It also notes the public accessibility, leaving little ambiguity for an agent deciding to invoke it. The tool is simple enough that this is complete.

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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter 'note_id' as 'Note ID or alias.' The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as format or examples, so baseline 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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 ('Get metadata') and clarifies the resource ('a note'). It also enumerates the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like hedgedoc_read_note which presumably returns 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as hedgedoc_read_note for content. It implies usage by focusing on metadata but offers no direct comparison or exclusions. The public endpoint note provides context about authentication but not when-not-to-use.

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