obsidian_template_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the output ('Returns the raw template text'), explains the `resolve` variable-expansion behavior, and notes the `title` role. It does not explicitly mention side-effect safety or edge cases, but the read-oriented wording and return-value detail provide solid transparency for this simple operation.

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 and front-loaded: a clear one-sentence purpose, a brief behavioral explanation, a parameter summary, and two illustrative examples. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return behavior. It does so ('Returns the raw template text'). It also sufficiently explains the parameters and includes examples. Minor omissions such as default values for `resolve`/`title` and error-handling behavior are not critical for a simple read tool, making this fairly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying `name` ('as it appears in the templates folder'), explaining the relationship between `resolve` and `title`, and providing concrete usage examples. This boosts the score above baseline.

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: 'Read the content of a template by name from the vault's templates folder.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like obsidian_read (notes) and obsidian_daily_read (daily notes), and it references the CLI verb `template:read` for additional precision.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (reading templates) and explains the optional `resolve`/`title` modes, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as obsidian_read or obsidian_create_from_template. The template-specific wording makes the intended use obvious enough.

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