Notes Get Note

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond saying it is 'delegated' and 'exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP.' It does not explain what the operation does, what it returns, or any constraints, so it adds no value beyond the annotations.

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, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence only restates the tool's name and provenance, and it does not earn its place because it conveys no substantive information about the tool's behavior.

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?

Although the tool has a simple signature and an output schema exists, the description fails to state even the basic purpose of the tool. Sibling tools show clear related operations, but without a description of what notes_get_note does, the definition is incomplete for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 description does not explain the note_id parameter. The parameter name hints it is a note identifier, but the description provides no additional meaning, format, or usage details. With zero schema coverage, this is a major gap.

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 is essentially a tautology: it restates the tool name ('notes_get_note') and notes that it is a 'Delegated Apple domain tool' exposed through MCP. It never states what the tool does—such as retrieving a note by ID—so an agent cannot learn its function from the description.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like notes_list_notes or notes_search_notes. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose it appropriately.

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