obsidian_read_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does clearly convey that this is a read operation returning the full text of a note, implying no side effects. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing paths, non-markdown files, encoding, or other edge cases that could affect an agent's expectations.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action clearly, and the Args section adds the only necessary parameter detail without any filler or repetition of the schema.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool does, what the path means, and provides an example. It is only missing brief mention of edge cases such as nonexistent paths or how it relates to sibling tools, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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?

The input schema only defines 'path' as a string with no description (0% schema coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that the path is vault-relative, should be a markdown path, and provides a concrete example: 'Projects/MyProject.md'. This gives the agent exactly what it needs to construct a correct argument.

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 operation with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the full text of a note from the vault.' The phrase 'full text' helps distinguish this from sibling tools that index, search, or list notes, even though those siblings are not explicitly named.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as obsidian_search, obsidian_list_notes, or obsidian_index. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or a decision process, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context 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.