hedgedoc_read_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return type ('markdown as a plain string'), authentication requirements, and that it is a public access point. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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 three concise sentences, each contributing unique information: the action, the return format, and the access control context. There is no repetition or filler, making it well-structured and front-loaded.

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 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: what it returns, how the ID is specified, and the public access nature. It could mention error cases or note existence, but overall it is complete for a straightforward read endpoint.

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 documents the sole parameter (note_id) with examples of both ID and alias forms. The description adds no extra semantic depth for the parameter itself, so the schema's high coverage sets the baseline at 3.

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 action ('Fetch the raw markdown content'), the resource ('existing note'), and the identifier types ('by its ID or alias'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_note and update_note by focusing on read-only content retrieval.

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 useful context about being a public endpoint with no authentication required, which informs when it can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool over others like note_info or list_history, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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