read_note

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the exact JSON return shape (content, bytes returned, total note size, contentHash) and the hash's purpose for compare-and-swap with edit tools. This behavioral context is not captured in annotations and is valuable for the agent.

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?

Three sentences: first states the operation and modes, second the return value, third the usage context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero wasted words, making it efficiently structured.

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 5 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers the return structure, the purpose of contentHash, and the prerequisite discovery steps. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and understand its output without ambiguity.

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 fully describes all five parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. The mention of block reference and line range merely echoes schema descriptions; no new semantics are introduced, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (note or span), enumerates three selection modes (heading section, block reference, line range), and distinguishes it from siblings like outline_note and search by its read-only content-return focus. The purpose is unambiguous and the description clearly differentiates the tool.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use search or outline_note first to find the path and section names, and explains the contentHash is to pass as prevHash to edit tools for compare-and-swap. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and ordering, effectively routing the agent to the correct prerequisite tools.

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