vault.read_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by mentioning 'return stable hash metadata', hinting at the output. However, it does not fully disclose behavioral aspects like whether the note content is returned, which could be important for an agent. No contradiction with annotations.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without any redundant words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key action.

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 lack of parameter explanations, missing usage guidelines, and no mention of return value structure (despite an output schema being present), the description leaves significant gaps. The tool is simple, but completeness is low.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning to the parameters 'path' and 'maxBytes'. The agent must infer from parameter names alone, leaving ambiguity (e.g., the range or unit of maxBytes is unmentioned).

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 'Read' and the resource 'one note from the vault', and specifies the return of 'stable hash metadata'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault.list_notes and vault.search_notes, which handle listing or searching rather than reading a single note.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the note's existence, nor does it contrast with sibling tools like vault.get_metadata or vault.list_notes.

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