read_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses the side effect of refreshing the SQLite index and explicitly states 'It never changes the file'. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return list, uses short, informative sentences, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value within a compact paragraph.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format thoroughly and covers the side effect. It could mention error conditions (e.g., missing file), but for a simple read tool the description is quite complete.

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% for the single 'path' parameter. The description echoes the schema's intent ('Relative path from OBSIDIAN_ROOT') and adds an example ('notes/my-note.md'), but does not provide additional meaning or constraints 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 Markdown note, specifies the return contents (body, frontmatter, hierarchy, etc.), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling write_file by noting it never changes the file.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool before write_file to preserve content or inspect metadata, providing clear context for one key scenario. It does not give broader when-not-to-use guidelines or alternatives for other siblings.

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