obsidian_get_file_contents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Return the content') but lacks details on error handling (e.g., if the file doesn't exist), performance aspects (e.g., file size limits), or output format (e.g., plain text, Markdown). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential read operations and no structured safety hints.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 complexity of file operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual elements like error cases (e.g., missing files), return value details (e.g., content format), or how it fits into the broader vault management context with siblings. This leaves gaps for safe and effective tool 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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'filepath' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify path formatting examples or vault-specific nuances), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 ('Return') and resource ('content of a single file'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obsidian_batch_get_file_contents' (which handles multiple files) or 'obsidian_simple_search' (which might return content with search filtering), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this exact tool.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like preferring 'obsidian_batch_get_file_contents' for multiple files or 'obsidian_simple_search' for filtered content, nor does it specify prerequisites like file existence. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to select the correct tool among siblings.

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