Get Vault Info

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not that the call is a safe read, not whether the vault must be open/authenticated, and not what the response contains. For a zero-arg introspection tool this is a substantial gap.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being a model of front-loaded 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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what 'information' is returned. It omits return contents, format, and any failure modes, leaving the definition incomplete for even a simple tool.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is simply no parameter meaning for the description to add and no risk of mis-invocation on argument grounds.

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?

States the verb 'Get' and the resource 'information about the Obsidian vault', so the agent knows it is a vault-level read rather than a note/file operation. But 'information' is left undefined – vault name, path, file counts, settings are all plausible – and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like obsidian-list-files or obsidian-ping.

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?

No when-to-use guidance appears. There is no statement of when an agent should call this versus obsidian-list-files (file inventory) or obsidian-ping (connectivity check), and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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