get_active_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return structure (content, path, metadata), which adds context, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens if no note is active, or any error behavior. This is a moderate gap for a tool without annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and output. No redundant words, no repetition of the tool name. It is concise and efficient.

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 simple getter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the main use case and return values. It even mentions that it returns metadata, which is helpful. The only notable omission is edge-case behavior (e.g., no active note), but that is a minor gap given the simplicity of the tool.

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 for both parameters (includeStats and includeContent), so the schema already explains their meaning. The description does not add extra semantic value beyond the schema, such as how these parameters interact with the return fields. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 it gets the currently active (focused) note in Obsidian, specifying the verb (Get) and resource (active note), and lists the return fields (content, path, metadata). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_note, which reads a specific note by path.

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 phrase 'currently active (focused) note' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when the user needs the note that is open/focused in Obsidian. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., read_note for a specific path) or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full guidance.

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