get_note

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations by mentioning that frontmatter and tags are parsed and that the path extension is optional. This helps an agent understand output structure and input flexibility, though it does not cover error behavior or full return format.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, and the most important information (what it reads and returns) comes first.

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 tool, the description covers the core function but omits details about the returned note structure (beyond frontmatter and tags) and error handling. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more on return format, making it slightly incomplete.

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 provides no description for the 'path' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only notes that the path extension is optional, but does not clarify path format (relative vs absolute) or how it resolves. This is minimal guidance for a critical parameter.

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 states a specific action ('Read a single note') and what is returned ('parsed frontmatter and tags'), which clearly distinguishes it from list_notes or search. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_daily_note or search. The usage is implied by the tool's purpose, but no conditions or exclusions are stated.

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