read_note

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles behavioral disclosure. It details truncation behavior in full mode (maxContentLength, truncated flag) and the response structure including context.next_actions. No side effects are relevant since it's a read operation.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for modes), but it is efficient and clear.

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 output schema and three parameters, the description adequately covers the behavior, output structure, and follow-up suggestions. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining that 'name' can be a path, filename, or fuzzy match, and clarifies the behavior of 'mode' and 'maxContentLength' beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Read a note's content' and distinguishes between brief and full modes, specifying what each returns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search or list_notes, which also retrieve note information.

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 explains when to use brief vs full mode and mentions follow-up actions from context.next_actions. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., search for finding notes, list_notes for listing).

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