read_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavior by stating that paths must stay inside OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH and that absolute paths or ../ traversal are rejected. This is more transparent than typical read-tool descriptions, though it does not disclose error behavior or file-not-found handling.

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 two short, purposeful segments: the operation sentence is front-loaded, and the path constraint follows in a compact separate statement. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description plus the existing output schema is largely complete: it states what the tool does and the key input constraint. It leaves minor gaps around expected path format and error handling, but an agent can safely select and invoke the tool based on the provided information.

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 schema only defines 'path' as a required string with no description, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It adds essential semantics: the path must stay within OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH, and absolute or traversal paths are rejected. It could further specify whether a .md extension or relative-to-root syntax is required, but it covers the critical safety constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one Markdown note inside the configured Obsidian vault.' This clearly identifies the operation and the object, and it distinguishes the tool from the sibling tools, which are write/search/update operations.

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 verb 'read' implies this is the tool to use for retrieving a note's content, but the description never states when to prefer it over siblings like search_memory or append_daily_note. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance, so usage is only implied.

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