List Obsidian notes

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

The description discloses sorting ('sorted by path') and pagination ('continue with next_offset when has_more is true'), which is not present in the annotations. With readOnlyHint=true already carrying the safety profile, the added behavioral details exceed the minimum required.

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 three compact sentences with no filler: purpose first, usage condition second, behavioral mechanics third. Every sentence earns its place and the key selection signal is front-loaded.

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?

With readOnly annotations, an output schema, and 80% schema coverage, the description adds exactly the missing context: when to use the tool and how pagination works. Nothing an agent needs to choose and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 80%, so the schema already documents tag, limit, offset, and prefix. The description adds conceptual mapping by mentioning 'folder and tag filters' and the pagination flow, but it does not add syntax or format details, so the schema-heavy baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Browse note titles and paths', a specific verb and resource, and specifies optional 'folder and tag filters'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like obsidian_read_note (content retrieval) and obsidian_search_notes (search by content) by targeting browsing over exact lookup.

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?

'Use when you know the folder or tag but not the exact note name' provides an explicit triggering condition. It stops short of naming alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the stated condition gives enough context for an agent to select this over exact-lookup or search siblings.

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