get_file_content

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that only text files are supported and binary files will return an encoding error. It also clarifies the return behavior (full text or error message), which is useful. The description does not mention any side effects or permissions, but for a read operation this is acceptable.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Note sections. It is slightly verbose (e.g., 'This parameter is REQUIRED' is redundant with the schema), but every part adds informative value, and it remains succinct overall.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, yet the description still explains the input format, provides examples, and notes limitations. It fully covers what the agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 no description for file_path (0% coverage), but the description more than compensates by explaining it must be a relative path from the vault root, giving examples, and emphasizing it is required. This adds significant meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads a file's content from the Obsidian Vault. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('file'), and the sibling tools (list_files, find_files, find_in_all_file_content) are distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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?

It instructs users to use the exact path format returned by list_files() or find_files(), which gives clear context for how to obtain the required input. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is so narrow that the guidance is adequate.

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