obsidian_read_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Read' and 'existing note,' implying a read-only operation, and adds context about the default vault. However, it does not disclose details such as error behavior if the note is missing, or explicit confirmation that it returns the note content, though an output schema exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Read an existing note from the configured default vault'), followed by concise usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place without 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 read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, input source, and when to use it. It could add error-handling notes, but the output schema likely covers return values, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 sole parameter 'slug' has no schema description, but the description explains it is the slug returned by obsidian_list_notes, giving practical meaning and reducing ambiguity. This compensates for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Read an existing note from the configured default vault.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like obsidian_append_note and obsidian_list_notes by specifying the read intent and the prerequisite slug from obsidian_list_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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use before appending to a note or answering about its content,' and provides the prerequisite of using the slug from obsidian_list_notes. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools like obsidian_read_inbox, the context is clear.

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