obsidian_open_note

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by specifying that the tool changes the UI but not the vault contents, and it discloses the dependency on the Local REST API plugin. It also details the exact return JSON and error format, giving the agent full awareness of what to expect. No contradiction with annotations; idempotentHint and destructiveHint are consistent with the described 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 well-structured with a clear 'Args' section and 'Returns' section. It is reasonably concise, though the return format is duplicated in the output schema, making it slightly redundant. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is highlighted. Overall, it is efficiently organized without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description covers the core aspects: purpose, prerequisite, parameter (path only), and return format. It does not mention the vault parameter, but the schema handles that. It also lacks explicit behavior for missing notes or invalid paths, but the error message format is given. For a simple tool, this is sufficient; a 5 would require covering all edge cases, which isn't necessary here.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (path and vault), and the tool description only repeats the path parameter without adding new meaning. The vault parameter is entirely omitted from the description. Since schema coverage is effectively 100% (both parameters have descriptions), the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra value for parameter understanding.

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: to bring a note up in the Obsidian window. It distinguishes the action from modifying vault contents, which separates it from write/delete tools. The verb 'open' and resource 'note' are specific, and the note about not changing contents clarifies its non-destructive nature.

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 a clear prerequisite (Obsidian running with the Local REST API plugin) and implies the use case of displaying a note in the UI. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like obsidian_read_note (which returns content) or obsidian_write_note, but the UI-focused wording and prerequisite offer sufficient guidance for typical selection.

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