Get Obsidian Note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers little: it does not say whether the call is a safe read, what happens when the note is missing (error vs empty), whether a path/extension is required, or what the returned content looks like. Only the implicit notion of retrieval signals non-mutation.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, appropriate for a single-parameter read tool. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing context noted elsewhere rather than through deliberate compression.

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 low-complexity tool the description is adequate only in the narrowest sense: there is no output schema, so the return value (raw markdown? frontmatter? binary assets?) is never characterized, and no error or path behavior is mentioned. An agent can guess it works, but cannot predict the result shape.

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% and the single parameter is documented with a concrete example ('My Note.md'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only 'by filename', no additional syntax, path, or extension semantics beyond the 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?

Description states a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (content of a note) qualified by lookup key ('by filename'), which distinguishes it from the broader obsidian-search-notes and obsidian-list-files siblings. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite stated (e.g. that you must already know the exact filename), and no routing to search-notes or list-files when the filename is unknown. The phrase 'by filename' only faintly implies the discovery step, leaving the agent to infer it.

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