Read Note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds that the tool returns 'full markdown content', which is valuable context. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., missing path), return format, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence (12 words) that conveys the essential information without any waste. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the action and the parameter. It could optionally mention what happens if the note doesn't exist or the return format, but for a read-only operation, the current description is sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, which includes a clear explanation and an example. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, but the schema already fully documents the parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Read the full markdown content of a note from the Obsidian vault.' It uses a specific verb ('read'), identifies the resource (note), and specifies the content type (full markdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note, update_note, or list_notes.

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 usage when you need a note's content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_notes or get_vault_overview. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so the context is only implied by the name and description.

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