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 states what data is returned but lacks behavioral details like whether this is a fast read operation, if it requires specific permissions, or if it might fail if the vault is inaccessible. The description is minimal and does not disclose operational traits beyond the output content.

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 purpose and enumerates the returned data. There is no wasted text, and it directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It specifies what data is returned but does not cover behavioral aspects or usage context. For a simple read tool, it meets minimum viability but lacks completeness for optimal agent 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'info' documented as returning only a specific piece of info. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it lists all possible info values but does not explain their semantics or usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'information about the Obsidian vault', specifying the exact data returned (name, path, file count, folder count, and size). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_files (which lists files) or get_tags (which retrieves tags) by focusing on vault metadata.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an open vault, or compare it to similar tools like get_outline or search_vault for different information needs.

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