get_note

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it retrieves note content, excludes binary content by default for performance, and allows explicit retrieval of binary data. It also hints at performance implications and search limitations for file/image notes. However, it doesn't cover error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are gaps for a tool with no 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The first sentence clearly states the tool's function, and subsequent sentences add useful context without redundancy. However, the use of emojis and some verbose phrasing (e.g., 'Perfect for when someone wants to see what's in a note') slightly reduces efficiency, but overall, it remains concise and well-structured.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the main purpose, usage scenarios, and key behavioral traits like binary content handling. However, it lacks details on return values, error conditions, and how it differs from sibling tools, which are important gaps for an agent to use it correctly without an output schema or annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, such as mentioning 'SMART CONTENT INCLUSION' and use cases for parameters, but it doesn't provide significant additional semantics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a note and its content by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('note and its content'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'read_attributes' or 'search_notes' beyond mentioning 'extract specific information' and 'prepare for search and replace operations,' which are use cases rather than distinctions.

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 implied usage guidelines by listing scenarios: 'when someone wants to see what's in a note, extract specific information, or prepare for search and replace operations.' It also mentions alternatives like using 'includeBinaryContent: true' for binary data, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'search_notes' or 'read_attributes,' leaving some ambiguity.

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