Open File In Obsidian

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (correct, as UI opening doesn't read content), destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds detailed behavioral context: returns { ok: true } on success, errors when file doesn't exist or API is unreachable, targets the live Obsidian vault which may differ from the filesystem vault, and is unaffected by vault.select. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections, uses bullet points and examples, and every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently covers all necessary information 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?

Given the tool complexity (UI operation with side effects), schema richness (all parameters described), and presence of output schema, the description is complete. It explains return value, error conditions, interactive behavior, and relationship to other tools like vault.select and notes.read.

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 100%, providing baseline descriptions for both parameters. The description adds further meaning by explaining the effect of newPane (opens in new split vs reusing active pane) and providing examples that illustrate parameter usage. The added context is valuable but not critical given rich 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 clearly states the verb 'Open' and the resource 'vault-relative note filePath in the live Obsidian UI'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'notes.read' by specifying it does not create, modify, or read content. The examples further clarify the purpose, making it highly specific and unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool (to open a note in the UI) and when not to use it (for content, use notes.read). It also clarifies that it is not affected by vault.select, which distinguishes it from vault-related operations. This provides excellent guidance for selecting the correct tool among siblings.

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