vault_get_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return formats (raw markdown, parsed JSON, document map) but lacks critical details such as error handling (e.g., if the file doesn't exist), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it safely.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return options without any redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 complexity (a file retrieval tool with multiple return formats) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains what the tool does and the return formats, but it misses behavioral details like error handling or usage context, leaving room for improvement in guiding an agent effectively.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description adds value by explaining the return formats (raw markdown, parsed JSON, document map), which compensates for the lack of an output schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 specific action ('Get the content of a file') and resource ('from the Obsidian vault'), distinguishing it from siblings like vault_list (listing files) or vault_create_file (creating files). It also specifies the types of content that can be returned, which adds precision.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_advanced or search_simple for finding files, or vault_patch_file for modifying content. It mentions return formats but does not specify scenarios or prerequisites for choosing this tool over others.

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