Read note

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing return contents (content, frontmatter, links, etc.), format variants, alias resolution, and error handling with 'Did you mean' suggestions, without contradiction.

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 concise (3 sentences), well-structured with front-loaded main purpose, and each sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy.

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 is read-only with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains all input options and output details, including edge cases like aliases and error suggestions.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining default format, the semantic difference between 'full' and 'map', and alias usage for titles.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read a note by relative path or by title', specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes output formats and alias resolution, differentiating from sibling tools like search or frontmatter get.

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 explains when to use 'full' vs 'map' format and mentions periodic-note aliases, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives. However, context from siblings implies it's for reading a single note, not searching.

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