read_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explicitly communicates a non-mutating read operation and lists exactly what will be returned, which is strong for a read-only tool. It does not describe ambiguity/error behavior, but that is a minor gap for this simple read 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element—the read operation and the returned note components—adds useful information 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?

The tool is simple, has one fully documented parameter, and no output schema. The description compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating the return scope. It is complete for a straightforward read operation, even though it lacks explicit sibling-routing guidance.

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 schema already fully documents pathOrTitle with examples and meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('an Obsidian note'), then details the returned components: frontmatter, body, metadata, wikilinks, and backlinks. This clearly distinguishes it from write_note, patch_note, delete_item, and search_vault.

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 read verb implies the tool is for retrieving a full note, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of search_vault or other siblings. No 'use this when...' or 'use X instead...' guidance is provided; context is only implied.

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