Get Notes

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

The annotation readonlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with it. The description adds that the tool returns 'concrete note fields and metadata,' but does not disclose behavior like error handling, pagination, or response structure. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, making it highly readable and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has two parameters, no output schema, and the description gives only a vague idea of return content ('concrete note fields and metadata'). It does not explain profileId, error cases, or the exact structure of the response, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about how to use the tool correctly.

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 description explains noteIds via 'by note ID,' but provides no semantics for the profileId parameter. With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description carries the full burden but only covers half the parameters, leaving profileId ambiguous.

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 fields and metadata by note ID, using a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('note fields and metadata'), and method ('by note ID'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_notes (searching) and add_note/update_note (writing).

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 phrase 'by note ID' implies use when note IDs are known, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives such as search_notes. No exclusions or conditions (e.g., when profileId should be provided) are mentioned, so usage context is clear but incomplete.

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