obsidian_get_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable privacy guarantee ('The API key is never returned') and implies read-only behavior through 'Show.' This goes beyond a bare getter description; only minor extras like side-effect confirmation are absent.

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?

Two brief sentences, no filler. The primary purpose and contents are front-loaded, and the important security note about the API key is included as a separate concise sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter getter with an output schema present. The description names the key fields returned and adds the critical API-key caveat. Nothing needed to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic clarity by naming the specific configuration fields returned (vault path, embedding provider/model), helping the agent interpret the output even without parameter details.

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 uses the specific verb 'Show' with a clear resource ('current configuration') and names concrete contents ('vault path, embedding provider/model'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on indexing, searching, and note operations.

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 purpose is so specific that when an agent needs configuration details, this is the obvious tool among the listed siblings. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling overlaps with config retrieval, so no additional routing is needed.

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