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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the operation is a read/return operation, which implies non-mutating behavior, but it doesn't say what happens if no note is open or whether the returned content includes metadata beyond the raw contents.

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, direct, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete to guide invocation. It states what the tool returns and the context in which it applies, and it doesn't need to explain return values because the output schema already provides that structure.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. With 100% schema coverage and an empty properties object, the description's silence on parameters is appropriate and complete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('contents of the note currently open in Obsidian'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_note (which reads a note by identifier/path) and list_notes, because it targets the contextually active note rather than a user-specified one.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for retrieving the note currently open in Obsidian. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as read_note, but the condition ('currently open') is enough for an agent to infer the appropriate situation.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a non-obvious side effect: the note is created if it does not exist. However, it does not mention whether a newline/separator is inserted, how path resolution behaves, or what happens on failure.

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 with no filler. Every part earns its place by stating the operation, the target, and the creation behavior.

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 two-string-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the main gotcha (auto-creation). The remaining gaps are path semantics and explicit alternative routing, which are relatively minor given the sibling names and low complexity.

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 0%, and the description only vaguely maps 'content' to 'text' and 'path' to 'note'. It does not explain what path should refer to, whether it is a filesystem path or note identifier, or whether content is appended verbatim. The compensation is thin given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Append text to the end of a note') on a clear resource ('note'). The parenthetical 'creates the note if it doesn't exist' adds a distinguishing behavior that separates it from similar siblings like write_note or read_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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: when the goal is to add content to an existing note, or create a note by appending initial text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the append-versus-write context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that deletion is permanent and irreversible, which is the most important behavioral trait for a destructive tool. It does not cover permissions or error behavior, but the key risk is clearly disclosed.

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 short sentences with no filler. The operation is front-loaded, and the irreversibility warning immediately follows it, giving the agent the essential caution without extra prose.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description is close to adequate. However, the lack of any detail about the path parameter's format or how the note is identified leaves a noticeable gap for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'path' parameter. An agent only knows that path is a required string and must infer what path format or location is expected.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Permanently delete a note.' The irreversibility warning and the deletion action clearly distinguish it from siblings like read_note, write_note, and search_notes.

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 intended use is implied by the operation itself: delete a note when it should be removed. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor does it mention any alternatives from the sibling set.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' strongly implies a non-mutating read operation, and the description adds useful root/subdirectory behavior, but it does not explicitly state whether the listing is read-only, recursive, or sorted.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and adds the parameter usage immediately. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter list tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential invocation detail (directory or root). It could add a note about whether the listing is restricted to immediate children, but nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the single parameter: 'Pass a subdirectory path, or leave empty for the vault root.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'directory' property and covers the default behavior.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List files and folders') and clarifies the scope by referencing the vault root and subdirectory paths. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_note, write_note, and delete_note, though it does not explicitly mention 'notes' in the first clause.

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 when to use the tool: whenever you need a directory listing, with a subdirectory path or the root. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like search_notes or read_note, so the guidance is present but only implicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly frames the operation as a read, clarifies that the full contents are returned, and defines the path format. It does not discuss error behavior for missing paths, but for a simple one-parameter read this is a minor gap.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action, names the target, and includes a useful example; every element earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly how to identify the note and what operation will be performed; nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 only defines 'path' as a required string with no description. The tool description adds essential meaning: the path is vault-relative and gives a concrete example. This compensates well for the 0% schema description 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 states a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('a note'), and the exact selection mechanism ('vault-relative path'). The example 'People/Alice.md' makes the meaning concrete, and 'full contents' helps distinguish this from listing or searching notes.

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 makes the usage context clear: call this when you have a vault-relative path and need the full note contents. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can route to it correctly among the sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are filenames ranked by relevance, but it does not clarify search semantics like case sensitivity, partial matches, result limits, or whether the search is strictly read-only.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with the result shape, making it easy to parse.

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 one-parameter search tool with an existing output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, the operation, and the output. Minor gaps remain around usage guidance and search behavior details, but these are not critical for a basic call.

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 has only one string parameter, 'query', with 0% description coverage. The phrase 'Full-text search' gives it contextual meaning, but the description does not explicitly elaborate on query syntax, formatting, or edge cases, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's semantics from the tool name and context.

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 a specific action ('Full-text search'), the target resource ('the vault'), and the output ('matching filenames ranked by relevance'). This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like list_notes and read_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 tool's purpose implies when to use it: when the agent needs to find notes by full-text query. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as using list_notes when browsing without a search query, so usage guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly exposes the destructive overwrite behavior, which is the most critical risk. It does not cover secondary side effects, but the core consequence is unambiguous.

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?

One efficient sentence with the action and destructive caveat front-loaded and the path qualifier appended. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 two-string-parameter write operation with an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: full overwrite and vault-relative path. Minor gaps such as directory creation or failure behavior exist, but the basic invocation requirements are satisfied.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully specifies that path is vault-relative, which is meaningful context absent from the schema. Content, however, is not elaborated beyond its parameter name, and no format or path conventions are given.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create or overwrite a note at a given vault-relative path. The explicit 'OVERWRITE' wording differentiates it from append_note and makes the tool's scope immediately clear.

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 full replacement and thereby hints at when to use this tool, but it never explicitly names append_note or states when to choose one over the other. An agent is left to infer the boundary between full-write and append behavior.

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