read_vault_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add meaningful behavior: reads only a bounded range and only from allowlisted notes. However, it does not mention error behavior, what happens when ranges are invalid, or whether the operation is strictly read-only beyond the verb 'Read'.

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 with no filler. The core action and constraint are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, it omits enough behavioral and boundary details that an agent may not understand defaults or edge-case behavior when invoking the tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only says 'bounded line range', which loosely maps to start_line and end_line, but it does not explain line numbering, inclusivity, the meaning of end_line being null, or the expected path format. The parameter names carry most of the meaning.

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, 'Read', with a specific resource, 'a bounded line range from an allowlisted Markdown note'. This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_vault, vault_status, and refresh_vault_index, which involve searching, status, and indexing rather than reading note content.

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 phrase 'bounded line range' and 'allowlisted Markdown note' imply the intended use case: retrieving a specific section of an allowed note. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_vault or refresh_vault_index, nor does it mention any exclusions beyond the allowlist constraint.

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