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 tool reads note content as plain text and that it is a dedicated read interface, which implies no side effects. However, it does not disclose details about error handling, permissions, rate limits, or return structure beyond the plain-text nature, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded. It consists of two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second explains how to obtain the required parameter. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is relatively complete. It covers the main purpose, the input parameter semantics, and notes the output format (plain text). It could mention what happens if the note_id is invalid or the note does not exist, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context by clarifying that note_id is the numeric ID from get_media_info or search results, which is not explicitly in the schema. It also reinforces the meaning of target_content_format by mentioning plain text. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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's function: reading note content as plain text. It specifies the exact resource (IMA note) and differentiates itself by being a dedicated interface for reading original note content, distinguishing it from search or knowledge base tools.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need the actual note text, and it explains where to obtain the required note_id (from get_media_info or search APIs). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand the appropriate usage.

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