obsidian-ts-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but fails to describe critical behaviors: it doesn't specify the return format (e.g., list structure, pagination), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation (though implied by 'list'). For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 purpose ('List tasks from notes') and briefly mentions key features. There's no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating filtering options for clarity.

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 moderate complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, behavioral traits like safety or performance, and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for an AI agent to use this tool effectively is insufficient.

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 documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by hinting at filtering ('by file, completion status, or show tasks from the daily note'), which loosely maps to parameters like 'file', 'done', 'todo', and 'daily', but doesn't provide additional syntax, constraints, or interactions beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('List tasks from notes') and the resource ('tasks'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'toggle_task' or 'create_note' by focusing on listing rather than modifying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_vault' which might also retrieve tasks, leaving some ambiguity.

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 implied usage by mentioning filtering options ('by file, completion status, or show tasks from the daily note'), which suggests when to use specific parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_vault' or 'list_files', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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