note_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read' and 'in full' clearly indicate a non-mutating retrieval of the complete note, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing titles, exact matching, or access constraints; for a simple read these are minor gaps.

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 sentence with the verb, resource, and key lookup criterion front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and rich parameter descriptions, the core invocation is adequately specified. However, it lacks guidance for choosing this tool over sibling tools, and there is no mention of edge cases or failure behavior, leaving the description only minimally complete.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented well in the input schema. The description reinforces that the lookup is by exact title but adds no meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one note'), and adds scope ('in full, by title'). It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like note_search or note_context.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not say 'use note_search when the title is unknown' or 'use note_context for surrounding context', so the agent must infer the appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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