shared_notes_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the operation and parameter. It does not disclose return shape, tag-matching semantics, whether no tag returns all notes, or any error or permission 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the optional parameter is stated directly, so every word earns its place.

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 with one optional parameter, the description is minimally viable: an agent can invoke it with or without a tag. However, with no output schema or annotations, it omits the return format and tag-matching details, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, 'Optional tag filter' does add meaning to the tag property by stating it is optional and used to filter results. It stops short of defining exact matching behavior, but for a single optional string parameter it provides a workable baseline.

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 names a specific action ('Read'), a concrete resource ('shared notes'), and an optional narrowing tag filter. This is enough to distinguish the tool from shared_notes_append, shared_memory_get, and read_file.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of related read tools or when the tag filter should be supplied. The only hint is the word 'Read', which leaves selection between shared_notes_read, memory_search, inbox_read, and read_file to inference.

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