get_ops_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating it retrieves details, which is consistent with the annotations. It does not contradict them, but also provides no extra context such as return format or error behavior.

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 zero waste. It immediately conveys the action and resource without padding, which is ideal for quick agent comprehension.

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-by-ID operation with annotations covering safety, this description is largely complete. It states the purpose, and the parameter is clear. It does not specify the return payload or error handling, but given no output schema and the trivial nature of the call, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. It slightly lacks explicit mention that it returns the full note object, but that is implied by 'details'.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (note_id) with a description 'Ops note ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage nuance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb ('get') and resource ('ops note'), and qualifies it as 'specific', distinguishing it from the sibling get_ops_notes. It does not explicitly mention the note_id parameter, but the schema fills that gap, so purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ops_notes, add_ops_note, or update_ops_note. It neither states a selection criterion nor mentions any exclusions. The distinction from get_ops_notes is only implied by the word 'specific', which an agent may or may not infer.

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