hedgedoc_read_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the auth requirement split between public and private notes, and the return shape (a plain markdown string). Rate limits and failure modes for nonexistent IDs are not addressed.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then two compact supporting sentences covering return type and access rules. No filler or redundancy; every sentence carries information.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies what annotations and schema leave open: the access model and a plain-string return. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single note_id parameter already documents both the ID and alias forms with examples. The description's mention of 'ID or alias' merely echoes the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the raw markdown content of an existing note') and a scoping key ('by its ID or alias'). The 'raw markdown' framing implicitly separates it from hedgedoc_note_info's metadata role, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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 gives an applicability condition for authentication ('public notes can be read without authentication; private ones need the configured account's access'), which is useful context. However, it never says when to choose this tool over hedgedoc_note_info or hedgedoc_create_note, leaving alternative routing to inference.

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