obsidian_read_note

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds non-obvious behavioral details: backlinks depend on Obsidian's link index and may be empty, the source can be 'rest' or 'filesystem', and failures return actionable error strings.

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 organized into a one-sentence purpose, a necessary caveat, then explicit Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds information needed to call the tool correctly, with no filler.

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 read-only tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it covers the key parameters, the behavior difference for backlinks, the return JSON shape, and failure output. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage at the top level, the description compensates by explaining path ('.md' optional), include_content (false for metadata only), and response_format ('markdown' or 'json'). It omits the vault parameter, though the schema itself documents that field.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reads a note's content, tags, frontmatter, and links. This distinguishes it from siblings like obsidian_write_note, obsidian_get_active_note, and obsidian_list_notes without needing to open the schema.

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 implies the natural use case (fetch note content/metadata by path) and notes the backlinks caveat, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over obsidian_get_active_note or obsidian_search_notes, nor any exclusions.

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