get-note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('get'), which implies non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese ('記事の詳細情報を取得する'), which translates to 'Get detailed information of an article.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, potential return values, or behavioral traits like safety or performance. For a read operation, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, making it inadequate overall.

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 has 100% description coverage, with noteId clearly documented as '記事ID（例: n4f0c7b884789）'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 '記事の詳細情報を取得する' clearly states the purpose: 'get detailed information of an article.' It specifies the verb (取得/get) and resource (記事/article), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get-user-notes or get-my-notes, which might also retrieve notes but in different contexts, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a specific note ID, or compare it to similar tools like get-user-notes or search-notes, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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