obsidian_get_note_context

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 never states that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, nor does it disclose cost/performance characteristics (this aggregates several data sources), depth of backlink/related-note resolution, or what 'budget options' actually control. Only the aggregation scope is conveyed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently sized, though the trailing 'with budget options' clause is too compressed to be actionable.

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 tool with a nested include object, a numeric cap, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves major gaps: it does not clarify the returned payload shape or the semantics of its budget controls. An agent could pass a path, but could not tune or interpret the response confidently.

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 0% across three parameters, one of which is a nested object with six boolean flags, so the description must compensate. It names five content types that loosely map to include flags but omits outgoingLinks entirely and never explains the include object structure or what maxRelatedNotes (default 10, max 50) bounds; 'budget options' is unexplained jargon.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (note context) and enumerates the aggregate contents (content, frontmatter, headings, backlinks, related notes), which distinguishes it from the narrower obsidian_read_note and obsidian_get_backlinks. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over obsidian_read_note, obsidian_get_backlinks, or obsidian_search_context, and no conditions or exclusions are given. The phrase 'with budget options' gestures at a use case without explaining it.

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