notes_get_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It adds useful behavior by stating it returns both HTML and text body, and the word 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential error cases, permissions, or whether attachments are included, leaving some behavioral aspects undocumented.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. Every phrase adds information: the action, the target, the lookup key, and the return payload. It is an ideal length for a simple retrieval tool.

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 the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool returns ('full HTML + text body') and how to target a note. It could note that the parent folder or metadata is not included, but that is a minor omission for such a simple getter.

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%, so the description must compensate for the parameter. It does mention 'note_id' and indicates that it selects the note, but it does not explain the expected format, source, or how to obtain a valid ID. For a single, obviously named parameter this is minimally sufficient but not more.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a specific note'), and the key identifier ('note_id'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, search, or recent-note retrieval. It also indicates the return content ('full HTML + text body'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage: when you have a note_id and need that exact note's full body. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as notes_search_notes or notes_list_notes. The guidance is reasonable but left to inference.

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