Read a note

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

The description indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, which is transparent. However, it does not specify behavior for non-existent notes or permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and while it is honest, it could be more explicit about safety.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word is meaningful with no redundancy or wasted text.

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 description states that it reads contents but does not describe the return format (e.g., plain text, markdown) or whether metadata is included. Without an output schema, more detail would improve completeness for a read operation.

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 100%, and the description adds value by explaining the two identification methods and providing examples ('My Note', 'Projects/Note.md'), which clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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 ('reads'), the resource ('contents of a note'), and identifies two identification methods (wikilink name or vault-relative path). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like obsidian_list_files or obsidian_search.

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 implies use when you want to retrieve note content, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or which sibling tool to prefer. The context of sibling tools with different actions provides some differentiation, but the description itself does not offer usage directions.

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