get_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that text note content is converted to markdown, which is beyond the schema. But it does not disclose behavior when includeContent is false, error handling, or what metadata includes. This is a moderate disclosure level for a read operation.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant wording. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the markdown detail is a valuable, concise addition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what is returned, and that content is markdown. It does not explain edge cases like includeContent=false or error handling, but these are relatively minor for a read operation and the sibling set makes the scope clear.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a small amount of value by stating content is markdown, which relates to includeContent, but it does not meaningfully clarify the noteId format or the optional parameter's behavior.

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 states a clear action ('Get a note by ID') with a specific resource and mentions the returned data (content and metadata). It is distinct from sibling tools like search_notes or get_note_tree because it targets retrieval by exact ID.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving a note when the note ID is known, and the markdown note about content suggests processing use cases. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when search_notes might be more appropriate, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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