open_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 of disclosing side effects and expectations. It only states the core action, without mentioning whether this affects the current UI, requires Obsidian to be running, or has any constraints. The lack of any behavioral detail beyond the primary operation leaves agents uninformed about consequences.

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 concise sentence that opens with the fully informative action. There is no fluff, repetition, or extraneous detail; every word contributes to the stated purpose. It is well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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's simplicity — one parameter, no output schema, and a straightforward operation — the description provides enough information to call it correctly, relying on the schema for parameter details. However, it does not contextualize the tool among siblings or elaborate on return/effects, though that is less critical for a single-parameter UI open action.

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 covers 100% of the parameter (path) with an example in its description, and the tool description itself adds little beyond restating the need for a vault path. Since the schema already explains the parameter format (e.g., 'folder/Note.md' and the reference to search/list output), the description adds marginal supplemental meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('open'), a concrete resource ('a note in the Obsidian app window'), and the distinct mechanism ('by its vault path'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_note or search_notes, as opening in the UI is a different action from retrieving content or listing results.

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 it (when you want a note opened in the Obsidian UI) but does not explicitly state conditions or exclude alternatives. It offers no explicit contrast with other tools, so the usage context is only inferred rather than clearly guided.

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