get_note_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the output is plain text and clarifies the ID's provenance, but it does not mention potential errors, authentication requirements, or what happens for invalid IDs. This is a simple read operation, so the description is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the main action. The second sentence adds context about being dedicated to IMA notes, which is somewhat redundant but not wasteful. It remains concise and readable.

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 getter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, how to obtain the ID, and the return format (plain text). It does not describe edge cases or length limits, but these are not critical for the tool's basic use.

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%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds value by elaborating on note_id's origin (get_media_info's notebook_id or search's doc_id), which helps the agent correctly populate the parameter. This goes beyond the schema's brief '笔记数字 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads note content as plain text, using a specific verb ('读取') and resource ('笔记正文'). It also distinguishes itself as the dedicated interface for reading original IMA note text, setting it apart from sibling tools like get_media_info which likely handles metadata.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need the raw text of a note. It explains the source of the required note_id (from get_media_info or search interfaces), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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