read_note

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation is a read and lists returned data categories (parsed frontmatter, markdown content, tags, file stats), which communicates non-destructive behavior and output scope. It does not mention error conditions, permissions, or how missing paths are handled, but for a simple read operation this is a reasonable minimum.

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 short and front-loaded with the action, using two sentences. There is slight redundancy between 'content, frontmatter, tags, and metadata' and 'parsed frontmatter, markdown content, tags... and file stats,' but it remains compact and free of 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent should expect: parsed frontmatter, markdown content, tags, and file stats. It could add note-level failure behavior or clarification about path resolution, but those are either in the schema or minor for the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the schema already documents both 'path' and 'includeRaw' with meaningful descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema; it does reinforce that the output contains parsed content and optional raw content, but this is not substantial added semantic value.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a note's content... from the vault.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_vault, create_note, update_note, and delete_note by stating it retrieves an existing note's details. It also specifies what is returned, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies this tool is for reading a specific note's content and metadata by path, which gives an agent clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use search_vault to find notes first,' so it stops short of full guidance, but the read vs. search vs. write distinction is inferable.

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