Vault Read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it requires the RESEARCH_MCP_OBSIDIAN_VAULT environment variable and restricts the tool to Markdown notes. It does not contradict the annotations, though it does not cover not-found or error 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 two short sentences. The first immediately states the action and object, and the second adds the only prerequisite. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter read tool with strong annotations and a fully described schema, the description adequately covers purpose, path format, and configuration requirement. It does not explicitly state the return format or error behavior, but these are intuitive for a note-reading tool and the complexity is low; overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter with an example ('research/burnout-review.md'), and the description only repeats the 'vault-relative path' concept. Since the schema already documents the parameter fully, the description adds no extra semantic value, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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', identifies the resource as 'Markdown note from the configured Obsidian vault', and specifies the method 'by vault-relative path'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault-search (find notes by query) and vault-write-note (write/update notes).

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?

It provides clear context by stating the requirement for RESEARCH_MCP_OBSIDIAN_VAULT and the need for a vault-relative path, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vault-search for locating a note. Usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with siblings.

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