Get All Tags

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies read-only via the verb. It does not say whether tags come from frontmatter, inline hashtags, or both, whether counts are included, or how results are ordered or capped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of richer content.

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 structurally simple (no params, no nested objects), so a short description is defensible. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should still explain what a "tag" means here and what shape the result takes; that gap keeps it at minimum viable.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is complete by definition and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify parameter meaning.

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?

"Get all tags used in the vault" states a specific verb (get) and resource (tags) with an explicit scope (the whole vault). No sibling tool in the list returns tags, so the function is distinguishable, but the description never names the alternatives (e.g., search-notes) to reinforce that distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus obsidian-search-notes or obsidian-list-files, which are the plausible adjacent operations. The usage is only implied by the verb "Get", and no exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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