open_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little. It does not say whether this changes the active note/focus, whether Obsidian must be running, or what happens if the path is invalid. Only the vague UI side effect is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 tool that mutates UI state, the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should explain the side effects and failure modes, and it does not. An agent cannot tell what 'open in UI' changes or requires.

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% and the single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format or path-resolution detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('a note') plus the destination context ('in the Obsidian UI'), which distinguishes it from content-reading siblings like read_note in spirit. However, it never names or contrasts with those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to open a note in the UI versus reading it with read_note or checking get_active_note, and no prerequisites are stated. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'in the Obsidian UI'.

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