Read note

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds that the entire raw markdown body is returned (not metadata or an excerpt), which is useful, but says nothing about error behavior for missing paths or truncation of very large notes.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the key qualifier (vault-relative path) at the end. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint, the description covers what is returned at a high level. Since no output schema exists, it could say slightly more about the response shape, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Vault-relative path, e.g. projects/idea.md'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description echoes the vault-relative framing without adding new meaning, which is the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (a note) plus the return scope ('full markdown content') and the path convention ('vault-relative'). It is clear against list_notes/search_notes in effect, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool requires a known path, which implicitly contrasts with search_notes/list_notes for discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative, so it stays at the minimum-viable level.

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