remnote_read_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads a note, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data or raw text). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the tool's function and key input, resulting in zero waste.

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 complexity of reading a note (which could involve permissions, data formats, or errors) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., note content, metadata, or error messages), authentication needs, or potential limitations. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to ensure reliable use.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters ('remId' and 'depth') with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what a 'Rem ID' is or providing examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('Read') and resource ('a specific note from RemNote'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the key identifier ('by its Rem ID'), which distinguishes it from other read operations that might use different identifiers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remnote_search' or 'remnote_status', which could also involve reading data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'remnote_search' for finding notes, or how it relates to 'remnote_status' for system information. There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing Rem ID, or exclusions for when other tools might be more appropriate.

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