read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns the note content with frontmatter, tags, and links, which adds useful context. However, it does not reveal potential error behavior (e.g., missing file), permissions, or whether it is strictly read-only beyond the name 'read'. This is minimal but sufficient for a simple read tool.

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 very concise: a short purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, and return value. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to fully specify return fields. It lacks details on error cases, but these are less critical for a basic read operation and do not prevent correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the meaning of 'path': 'Chemin de la note (relatif au vault ou absolu)' (relative to the vault or absolute). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's bare field name and type, effectively documenting the only parameter.

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 function: 'Lit une note avec ses metadonnees' (Reads a note with its metadata). It specifies both the verb ('lit') and the resource ('note'), and the inclusion of metadata further clarifies the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'write', 'delete', and 'move', which have obviously different purposes.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to read a note with its metadata. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but for a simple read operation the intended usage is evident. This aligns with a 'clear context, no exclusions' rating.

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