Synapse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('full content including frontmatter'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., if file doesn't exist) or performance aspects.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Read a file from the Obsidian vault') and adds necessary detail about the return value. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior), and clear purpose, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the return content, which compensates for the lack of output schema. A minor gap is no mention of error cases (e.g., missing files).

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%, with the schema fully documenting the single 'path' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of valid paths beyond the schema's example). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Read a file') and resource ('from the Obsidian vault'), distinguishing it from siblings like vault_list (list files) or vault_write (write files). It also specifies the scope of what's returned ('full content including frontmatter'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for reading file content, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vault_frontmatter (which might extract only frontmatter) or vault_search (which searches content). It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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