notes_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state what happens if conflicting identifiers (note_id vs name) are provided, if multiple notes match by name, or if no identifier is given. The description is too vague to guide invocation safely.

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 concise sentence. While it could be more structured (e.g., listing parameters), it wastes no words and is immediately understandable.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify whether parameters are mutually exclusive, what happens if both note_id and name are provided, or what the return format looks like. The tool has moderate complexity that the description fails to address.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by id or name', adding meaning to note_id and name, but completely ignores the 'folder' parameter, failing to explain its role or how it interacts with the other identifiers.

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 gets note title and body by id or name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like notes_list (which lists all notes) or notes_search (which searches), leaving the agent unsure when to use this exact tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer notes_get over notes_list or notes_search, nor does it explain prerequisites or exclusions.

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