get_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the description is silent on permissions, not-found behavior, and whether soft-deleted notes (a restore_note sibling exists) are returned; it adds only the modifier 'full content and details' beyond the schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. The trailing 'Args:' block restates the parameter in a slightly redundant way but does no harm.

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-record read with an output schema present, return values need not be described. Still, with no annotations, the definition leaves unaddressed whether missing/deleted notes raise an error and what the caller must have to read the note, which is thin for the surrounding CRUD toolset.

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% and the single parameter is documented only as 'Note Id'. The description adds the meaningful detail that note_id is a UUID, which the schema does not convey, but includes no format example, source, or error semantics for a bad ID.

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 and resource ('Get full content and details of a single Sticky Note by its UUID'), and the word 'single' plus the UUID lookup implicitly separates it from list_notes/search_notes. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast scopes, so it falls just short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_notes, search_notes, or get_stats. The only inference an agent can draw is that a UUID is required, which the schema already makes mandatory; no alternatives or prerequisites are stated.

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