note_get_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Safe to call repeatedly; no side effects.' and mentions a known limitation. This covers safety and idempotency, but does not discuss error cases or response behavior when IDs are invalid.

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 moderately lengthy but well-structured with front-loaded purpose, then limitation, usage, alternative, and safety. Each sentence contributes uniquely, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains return type, known limitations, usage instructions, alternative tool, and safety. Only minor aspects like error handling are missing, but overall it is complete.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between targetKind and id (e.g., set targetKind to 'task' and provide a task ID) and includes a usage example, which supplements the schema.

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 it reads the HTML fragment from a task or project note. It specifies the return format ({ noteHtml } — an HTML string or null) and distinguishes from sibling tool note_get by noting its plain-text alternative.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs note_get: 'For plain-text access without formatting, use note_get instead.' It also explains how to set targetKind and id, and notes a known limitation about OmniFocus 4.x degredation.

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