obsidian_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys that the tool is a read operation, and the parameter constraints are disclosed. However, it does not mention the return format, error handling (e.g., note not found), or explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, leaving some room for inference.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose, parameter details, and two examples. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The use of headings and examples improves readability for an agent.

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 tool with two optional-but-one-required parameters, the description fully covers how to invoke it. There is no output schema, so the return value is not explicitly described, but the read operation's purpose implies the note content. Minor edge cases like both parameters being provided are not addressed, which is a small gap.

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 describes both parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds essential meaning by explaining 'wikilink resolution', 'vault-relative path', and the constraint that one of the two is required. Examples further clarify usage beyond the schema.

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 'Read a note by file name (wikilink-style) or exact path.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like obsidian_search or obsidian_daily_read, which have different purposes.

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 clearly explains the two mutually exclusive parameters (file vs path) and states that exactly one is required, with examples. It does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools, but the context of when to use each parameter is clear.

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