Get note

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does add value by noting 'including its full body', which clarifies the return content, and 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing/nonexistent ids, authentication requirements, or any other edge-case behavior. It provides some transparency but not comprehensive detail.

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, efficiently worded sentence that starts with the verb 'Retrieve' and immediately conveys the action, target, and relevant distinguishing detail ('by id', 'full body'). There is no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary prose, making it highly concise and well-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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return content (full body). It stops short of covering id-not-found behavior or providing pointers to sibling tools like search_notes for alternative retrieval scenarios. Given the low complexity, this is still largely complete, but those omissions keep it from being fully comprehensive.

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 input schema fully describes the 'id' parameter as 'The note id', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description's 'by id' restates the schema without adding new semantic detail, such as expected format or error behavior. Since the schema provides complete coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not elevate param understanding beyond the schema.

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 ('Retrieve'), the resource ('a single note'), the identifier ('by id'), and the scope ('including its full body'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note and search_notes, which are either mutations or return multiple notes. The mention of 'single' and 'full body' further sharpens the specific purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_notes. It does not state when to use it, when not to use it, or mention any alternative tools. The only implicit hint is 'full body', but that is not developed into actionable guidance.

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