obsidian-ts-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the read-only nature of listing backlinks, but doesn't mention potential limitations like whether it returns all backlinks or is paginated, what happens if no backlinks exist, or if there are rate limits. It provides basic operational context but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the tool's purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and how to use it. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list structure, what fields are included in each backlink entry), which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds valuable semantic context by explaining the relationship between 'file' and 'path' parameters ('at least one of'), which clarifies their optional but mutually reinforcing nature. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 ('List all notes that link to a given note') and identifies the resource ('backlinks/incoming links'). It distinguishes this from siblings like 'get_outline' or 'search_vault' by focusing specifically on reverse link relationships rather than content structure or general search.

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 about when to use this tool ('to find backlinks for a note') and specifies the required input condition ('Provide at least one of 'file' or 'path''). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for similar link-related queries.

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