obsidian_list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the keyword filters by path substring, which adds useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention what the output contains (beyond the existence of an output schema) or whether it includes notes in subfolders, though for a simple listing tool this is a minor 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?

The description is extremely concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose statement followed by a single parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant information.

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?

For a simple, single-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. It could be improved by explicitly saying 'use this to enumerate all vault notes' or distinguishing from content search, but nothing critical is missing for making a correct call.

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 schema only says keyword is a nullable string with default null; it provides no description. The description adds real semantic value: keyword is an optional filter and matches 'notes whose path contains this string.' This is exactly the meaning an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('markdown notes in the vault'), making the tool's primary function obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like obsidian_search or obsidian_read_note, but the verb and resource are sufficiently specific to infer the difference.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as obsidian_search (for content search) or obsidian_read_note (for reading a single note). The optional keyword filter is described, but no context is given about when listing notes is the right choice.

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