get_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It only states that it returns formatted content with metadata, but doesn't disclose the read-only nature, error handling (e.g., missing ID), or any permissions/rate limits. The lack of such details makes it opaque for an unannotated tool.

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 and well-structured with Args and Returns sections, providing exactly the needed detail without any fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 1-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the input format and return type, though it omits potential error states or preconditions. Still, given its simplicity, it's adequate.

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 description adds meaning by specifying the format of note_id as an x-coredata:// URL, which is not present in the schema's type-only definition. This helps the agent construct the parameter correctly despite the schema being minimal.

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 tool retrieves the full content of a specific note by ID, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('note by ID'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on reading a single note versus creating, appending, or listing notes.

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 implies usage when the user needs the complete content of one note, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since siblings are visible, the intended context is clear, but there's no direct comparison or exclusion.

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