obsidian_read_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format (Markdown content), but says nothing about error behavior for a missing/invalid path, read-only/non-destructive nature, or how vault_path affects resolution.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity edges toward under-specification for a tool with no annotations.

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 two-param read tool with full schema coverage, the essentials are present and the return content type is stated (no output schema needed). Missing error/precondition context and vault-override behavior keep it only minimally adequate.

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 both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no path syntax, relative-path resolution, or vault-override semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('content of a specific note') with the format qualifier '(Markdown)'. It is distinguishable from list_notes/search_notes by targeting a single note by path, but it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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 gives no when-to-use versus alternatives such as obsidian_search_notes, obsidian_list_notes, or obsidian_get_daily_note. 'Specific note' weakly implies you already know the path, but no conditional guidance is stated.

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