Read Obsidian Note

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying path handling (relative path, optional extension) and that it reads 'full markdown content'. It does not cover error behavior (e.g., missing note), but is otherwise transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, path format, read-only nature. Given no output schema, it might be slightly incomplete regarding the return format, but for an agent it's sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% for the one parameter 'path'. The description adds the detail that '.md extension is optional', which is not in the schema's description. This provides extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Read the full markdown content of a note in the vault', with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like write, append, list, search, frontmatter, and wikilinks by its focus on reading full content.

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 clear context: reading full content, path relative to vault root, .md extension optional. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like obsidian_read_frontmatter or obsidian_search_vault, leaving the decision to the agent's understanding.

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