get_note_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is plain text and clarifies the ID mapping, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential errors, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid IDs. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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, no output schema, and good sibling context, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to get the ID, and the output format. It could mention error behavior or return details, but for a read tool with clear parameter guidance, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that note_id corresponds to notebook_id from get_media_info or doc_id from search, which is not present in the schema. This semantic enrichment goes beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb '读取' (read) and resource '笔记正文' (note content), making the function clear. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating it is the dedicated interface for reading note original text, and clarifies the ID source relationships with get_media_info and search APIs.

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 gives clear context on when to use it: read note content, and how to obtain the required note_id (from get_media_info or note search). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the guidance on ID provenance is valuable.

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