Get active note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral context that it returns the note currently open in the editor, which is useful. It does not, however, disclose edge cases like behavior when no note is active or what happens if content is not included. Given the annotations cover the main safety aspects, a 3 is appropriate.

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, information-dense sentence followed by a precise usage hint. Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded. There is zero redundancy, making it an excellent example of conciseness.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and when to use it. It doesn't mention error handling or what happens when no note is active, but the simplicity and existing annotations make this a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke this tool in most scenarios.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter includeContent, with a clear description ('Include the note body, or only its path.'). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific guidance, but that's acceptable because the schema already fully documents the parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 tool's purpose: to retrieve the currently open note in Obsidian. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('active note'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like read_note by focusing on the note the user is currently viewing. The phrase 'what the user is looking at right now' adds concrete context, and the usage example ('this note') reinforces the intent.

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 provides an explicit trigger for when to use this tool: when the user says 'this note' without naming it. This gives clear guidance on when to select it over alternatives like read_note. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling list makes the distinction implicit. This is a strong usage guideline but not fully exhaustive.

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