mcp-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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads note contents but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the path doesn't exist), permissions required, rate limits, or whether it's a safe read operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter with an example. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, though the parameter explanation could be slightly more integrated rather than a separate 'Args' section.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks behavioral context. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but without annotations, it should ideally mention safety aspects or error conditions to be fully helpful for an agent.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'path' by explaining it's a 'Relative path to the note file' and providing an example ('folder/My Note.md'). Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only has a title 'Path'), this compensates well, though it doesn't cover edge cases like path formatting rules or supported file extensions.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('contents of a note in the vault'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_frontmatter' or 'get_note_stats' that also read note data, which prevents a perfect score.

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. With siblings like 'get_frontmatter' (reads metadata), 'get_daily_note' (reads a specific type), and 'search_notes' (reads multiple notes), there's no indication of when 'read_note' is preferred or what distinguishes it from these other read operations.

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