read_note

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

The description discloses that it returns full content including frontmatter, and mentions a 'parsed sections' capability, adding some behavioral context. However, it does not explain what 'parsed sections' means or how to enable them, and since no annotations are provided, more detail would be expected.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Read the content of a note') and quickly adds return details. No unnecessary words 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 read tool with no output schema, the description gives a basic sense of the return value (full content with frontmatter, or parsed sections). However, it lacks details on error handling, the meaning of parsed sections, and how this tool fits with other read/search tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters such as includeStats or includeFrontmatter beyond what the schema already states.

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 note content from the Obsidian vault, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_frontmatter by mentioning full content and parsed sections, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_frontmatter, search_notes, or get_file_stats. There is no mention of suitable use cases or exclusions.

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