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 does disclose the returned shape (text, frontmatter, tags, wikilinks), which is genuinely useful behavioral context given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about failure modes (missing note, ambiguous note), permission requirements, or whether any vault state is touched, and the visible text ends mid-clause.

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 lead clause is well front-loaded with verb and resource, and the enumeration of returned fields is efficient. But the visible description terminates mid-sentence at '(each with the not...', so it is not a complete, self-contained statement and cannot be judged as fully polished.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description sensibly compensates by listing the returned payload, which is the right instinct. What it leaves unresolved is how the caller identifies which note to read given the empty parameter schema, and it offers no error or vault-context guidance.

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 input schema declares zero properties, so the baseline of 4 for parameter-free tools applies; there are no parameters for the description to explain. The one caveat is that the description never clarifies how the target note is identified, which is an oddity against an empty schema, but that is a schema-level gap rather than a parameter-semantics failure.

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 verb and resource ('Reads one note of an Obsidian vault') and then enumerates the payload it returns: text, frontmatter, tags, and outgoing [[wikilinks]]. That is far more specific than a tautology and lets an agent distinguish it from obsidian_search_notes or obsidian_write_note by the fact that it returns one note's full contents. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as vault selection, and no routing to alternatives like obsidian_search_notes for discovery or obsidian_list_vaults for enumeration. The agent must infer the usage context from the verb alone.

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