obsidian-ts-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: it gets the path and creates the note if missing. However, it lacks details on permissions, file format, location, or error handling, which are important for a tool that modifies the filesystem.

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 front-loaded and concise with two sentences: the first states the core action, and the second specifies the return value. Every sentence earns its place without waste, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that potentially creates files, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and return value but omits details like output format, error cases, or side effects, which could aid the agent in safe invocation.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but this is acceptable as there are no parameters to document, and it clarifies the tool's action without redundancy.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('get' and 'creating') and resource ('today's daily note path'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_note' (general creation) and 'read_note' (reading existing notes) by focusing on the daily note with creation fallback.

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 when to use it: for accessing today's daily note, ensuring it exists. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'read_note' for existing notes or 'create_note' for non-daily notes, leaving some ambiguity.

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