Get note with graph context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the performance cost of backlinks and implies read-only behavior, but doesn't mention error cases, return format, or permissions.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and components, second provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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?

Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, key parameter behavior, and return structure hints. Missing details like error handling or path existence prerequisites, but acceptable for a read-like tool.

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 descriptions cover 67% of parameters (path and include). The description adds value by explaining the purpose of `include` and its performance impact, but the `backlinks_limit` parameter lacks explicit behavioral meaning beyond 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 'Get a note's content plus its graph context' with specific components (backlinks, forward links, tags, frontmatter). This differentiates it from siblings like get_backlinks or get_active_note.

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?

It advises using the `include` array to control fetched context and warns that backlinks are expensive, giving practical when-to-use guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool.

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