Read Note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two output modes (markdown vs JSON) based on the asJson flag, which is useful, but it does not disclose error behavior, access requirements, or the read-only nature beyond the verb 'Read'. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then specifies the conditional behavior, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to invoke it correctly by clarifying the return format for both parameter states. It lacks details about error cases or default values, but those are not critical for basic invocation. The description is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including descriptions of path and asJson. The description's reference to 'asJson' reiterates the schema rather than adding new semantic meaning. It meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 action (Read) and the resource (a note), and differentiates itself from siblings like create, append, and delete. The mention of 'as markdown or as structured JSON metadata' adds precision beyond just 'read 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_list or obsidian_search. There is no mention of scenarios where this read tool is appropriate or not, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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