obsidian_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Read' conveys a non-mutating operation, but the description does not state what happens when the path does not exist, whether the .md extension is required, or what form the returned note content takes.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with two compact examples that disambiguate path format. No unnecessary words.

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 read tool, the description covers what the tool does and how to specify the path. It does not document error behavior or return format, but these are largely inferable from 'Read a note' and no output schema exists.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing that 'School/Notes' and 'School/Notes.md' are both acceptable, clarifying that the extension is optional and the path is relative.

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 names a specific action ('Read a note') and a precise resource ('from the Obsidian vault by path'), and the by-path mechanism distinguishes it from sibling search/list/find tools that locate notes differently. This is immediately actionable for an agent.

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 the tool is for when the agent already knows the path, and gives path examples. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g. obsidian_search or obsidian_find) when the path is unknown, so usage guidance is only implied.

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