obsidian_open

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention error handling (e.g., file not found), resolution priority between 'file' and 'path', or the effect of 'newtab' on the workspace. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect invocations.

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 very concise at one sentence, but it is overly minimal. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the key information, but lacks structure or additional context that would fit in one or two more sentences.

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 no output schema and 3 optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (e.g., success/failure) or behavior in edge cases (e.g., conflicting file and path). Sibling tools like obsidian_create have more detailed descriptions, indicating this is insufficient for the complexity.

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%, with each parameter having a brief description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself is adequate. Baseline is 3 for high 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 file in Obsidian' clearly states the action (open) and the resource (file in Obsidian). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like obsidian_read or obsidian_create, though it could clarify that it opens the file in the editor.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no indication of prerequisites (e.g., file must exist) or comparison with obsidian_read (which returns content) or obsidian_command (which can open files via commands).

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