read_note_by_filename

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about case sensitivity, whether partial names or paths are accepted, or what happens when the filename does not exist (error vs empty). For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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 short sentences with no waste; the core action is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows it. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description supplies the one operational detail an agent needs: how to obtain the filename. Behavior on missing/invalid filenames is the only meaningful omission.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'filename' parameter has no schema description, but the description compensates with the key semantic qualifier 'exact,' implying exact-match rather than fuzzy or prefix matching. It stops short of clarifying path handling or case rules, so it only partially covers the gap.

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 ('Read a note') and narrows it with 'by exact filename,' which distinguishes it from a general list/browse operation. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the lookup-by-key semantics make it distinguishable from list_notes and the write siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite step: consult notes://all to obtain the filename before calling. That is real routing guidance, though it points at a resource URI rather than naming the sibling list_notes, and it offers no when-not-to-use or exclusivity guidance.

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