open_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral outcome (making the note visible and active), but does not mention edge cases, failure modes, or prerequisites such as Obsidian being running. The disclosure is adequate for a simple tool but lacks depth.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the action and include the key behavioral effect. Every word contributes to understanding, with no unnecessary jargon or repetition.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and effect. It lacks details on error behavior or the newPane option's visual effect, but these are partially addressed by the schema. Overall, it is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about 'path' or 'newPane', so it holds the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: opening a note in the Obsidian user interface, making it visible and active. The verb 'Open' is specific, and the resource ('note') and context ('Obsidian user interface') are explicit. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_note or delete_note.

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 implies usage for UI interaction, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives like read_note. The phrase 'in the Obsidian user interface' provides clear context, but there is no direct comparison to siblings or stated exclusions. Thus, usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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