Read Obsidian Note

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: path can omit .md extension, include_frontmatter controls response content, and the return object shape is shown. This goes beyond the safety profile and helps the agent anticipate behavior.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only relevant details. The return block is structured and immediately useful, with no extraneous content.

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 operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers path behavior, frontmatter control, and the exact return fields. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without guessing.

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% and both parameters already have detailed descriptions. The description's note about 'with or without .md extension' and 'include_frontmatter=false' largely repeats the schema's examples and semantics, adding minimal new meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the full content of a specific note by path'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like search, list, or delete. It also adds the path flexibility detail, reinforcing its purpose.

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 states clear context: it is for reading a specific note by path. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the placement among siblings and the wording imply this is the go-to for full note content.

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