get_saved_note

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

The description clearly identifies that this is a read operation returning cached data, but with no annotations present, more context is needed—such as staleness implications, error handling, or authentication requirements. It is not misleading but stays surface-level.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates action, resource, and details without redundancy. Every clause adds value and no space is wasted.

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 simple read tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and parameter semantics. It does not address edge cases like missing or invalid IDs, but overall it gives an adequate mental model for an agent to select and use the tool.

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 parameter `url_or_id` is given meaningful explanation: it can be a URL or a local identifier. Since the schema description coverage is 0%, this is essential additional context. A concrete example or format hint would have been useful but is not required for the one-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), specific resource ('full cached note details'), and enumerates returned fields ('author, body, engagement counts'). This clarifies the tool's scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_note_content or search_saved_notes.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_note_content or sync_saved_notes. It specifies the lookup mechanism (by URL or local ID) but does not explain contexts, exclusions, or constraints.

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