read_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully reveals that private notes are never readable and that the tool returns the full-content hash, not raw note text. It does not cover error behavior, authentication, or how offset/max_length shape the response, but the core access and return semantics are disclosed.

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 two short sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every clause adds value — operation, addressing, return type, and a key restriction — with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the core read operation, path-based addressing, the private-note restriction, and the return type. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits the semantics of offset/max_length, behavior for missing or inaccessible notes, and what distinguishes a 'standard note' from other note types, leaving it minimally complete for a three-parameter tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare parameter titles. It clarifies only the `note` parameter as a vault-relative path and hints at the output being a hash. The `offset` and `max_length` parameters are left entirely unexplained beyond their names and defaults, which is a significant gap.

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 identifies the operation ('Read'), the resource ('a standard note'), and the addressing mechanism ('vault-relative path'). It also adds a key distinction — private notes are never readable — but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like search_notes or list_notes, so the differentiation from alternatives is not fully explicit.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a known vault-relative path and need to read a standard note. It also states an exclusion ('Private notes are never readable'), but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer read_note over list_notes, search_notes, or rag_search, nor any alternative tool for private notes.

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