read_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility for disclosing behavior. The word 'read' clearly indicates a non-destructive operation, and 'by workspace-relative filename' specifies the addressing scheme. It does not discuss error handling or return format, but the presence of an output schema covers return structure. This is adequate for a simple read 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 a single sentence, directly communicates the action, and contains no filler. It is perfectly structured with the verb first and the qualifier last.

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 read operation with a single parameter and an output schema, the description provides all essential information: what it does (reads one note), which parameter to use (filename), and how it is interpreted (workspace-relative). It is complete enough for an AI to invoke correctly without extra documentation.

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 only defines 'filename' as a string with no description. The description adds crucial semantics by specifying that the filename is 'workspace-relative', which clarifies the expected input format. This helps the agent construct the correct argument value.

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 the specific verb 'read' plus resource 'one Markdown note' and specifies the key qualifier 'workspace-relative filename', which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_notes (listing) and search_notes (searching). It precisely identifies the function without ambiguity.

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: you should use this tool when you have the workspace-relative filename and want to retrieve a single note's content. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives, such as suggesting search_notes when the filename is unknown. So it relies on context.

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