read_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Read a note' conveys non-mutating intent, which is helpful, but it does not mention how missing paths are handled, how include_frontmatter affects the result, or any other runtime behavior. The opacity is acceptable for a simple read tool but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy with the schema. It is easy to parse, though its brevity comes at the cost of usage guidance.

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 straightforward read operation with complete schema coverage and an output schema present, the minimal description is largely sufficient. However, it does not connect the tool to its sibling tools or explain the intended relationship to get_daily_note, which leaves a modest contextual gap.

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%, with both path and include_frontmatter documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema does the necessary work. This matches the baseline-3 case where the description need not repeat schema details.

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 verb ('read') and resource ('a note from the Obsidian vault'), so an agent can distinguish it from write_note, list_notes, and search_notes. It does not explicitly contrast with get_daily_note or mention the by-path access mode, but the core purpose is 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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_daily_note or search_notes. There are no stated alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria 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.