obsidian_get_recent_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, how results are sorted (e.g., by modification time), what happens when no recent files exist, or whether there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and gets straight to the point.

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 relatively simple read operation with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about behavioral characteristics, usage scenarios, and result format that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 description doesn't mention any parameters, but the input schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation for both 'limit' and 'days' parameters including defaults and constraints. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'recently modified files in the vault', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obsidian_list_files_in_vault' or 'obsidian_list_files_in_dir' which also list files, though the 'recently modified' aspect provides some implicit 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'obsidian_list_files_in_vault' and 'obsidian_list_files_in_dir' that also list files, there's no indication of when this filtered-by-recent-changes approach is preferred over those broader listing tools.

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