get_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Retrieves the body text' without mentioning whether the response includes metadata, formatting, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if the note is not found). The 'by title or ID' claim also introduces ambiguity about the expected input format, reducing 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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant phrasing. It earns conciseness points for efficiency, though the ambiguous 'by title or ID' phrase slightly detracts from perfect clarity.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits return value expectations, error cases, and how to obtain a valid ID (e.g., via list_notes). Given the low complexity, some of this context is necessary for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', described as 'Note ID'. The description adds 'by title or ID', which suggests the parameter might also accept a title, contradicting the schema. This is more harmful than helpful, as it introduces semantic ambiguity rather than clarifying the parameter's meaning.

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 verb 'Retrieves' with the resource 'a note' and specifies 'body text', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notes and update_note. However, the claim 'by title or ID' is inconsistent with the input schema, which only accepts an 'id' parameter, creating potential confusion about the actual lookup method.

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 such as list_notes, nor does it mention prerequisites like obtaining the note ID first. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent without context for proper selection.

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