get_active_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the Windows platform scope and that both path and full content are returned, but omits key behavior such as what happens when no note is open or in focus, and whether the read has any side effects or side constraints.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though slightly terse for a tool whose return behavior is not otherwise documented.

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?

With no output schema, the description does cover the return payload (path plus complete content) and the platform restriction, which is enough for an agent to invoke a zero-argument read tool. The main residual gap is error/no-active-note behavior.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or target arguments are needed.

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?

Names a specific resource and output: the path and full content of the note currently open/in focus in the Obsidian window. It is clearly distinguishable from path-based siblings like read_note, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with an alternative tool.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'currently open or in focus' — the agent must infer that this is for the active-note context rather than an arbitrary file. No when-to-use, prerequisites, or comparison against read_note/open_file is provided.

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