Open Note in Obsidian

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 only states the basic action and does not disclose side effects such as changing the UI state, opening a new leaf, or the result if the path is invalid. The description adds little beyond the title, offering no behavioral context like error behavior or Obsidian application requirements.

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, clear sentence without any redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has simple parameters and no output schema, but the description is too minimal. It lacks important context such as how this differs from obsidian_read, whether the note must exist, and the effect of the 'newLeaf' parameter. For a UI interaction tool, a bit more guidance would make it complete enough for an agent to use 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?

The schema already describes both parameters fully: 'path' with an example and 'newLeaf' with its meaning. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 'Open a note in the Obsidian UI' clearly identifies the action (open) and the resource (a note), and specifies the target environment (Obsidian UI). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like obsidian_read (which reads content programmatically) and obsidian_create (which creates a note).

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 such as obsidian_read or obsidian_daily_read. It does not mention prerequisites, whether the note must already exist, or that this is intended for UI-facing operations rather than programmatic access.

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