obsidian_simple_search

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. It mentions the tool performs a 'simple search' and returns context around matches, but doesn't specify what 'simple' entails (e.g., case sensitivity, regex support, performance characteristics, or error handling). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage. There's no unnecessary information, and each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's role. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient overall.

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?

Given the complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., file names, snippets, or full content), how results are formatted, or any limitations. For a tool with 2 parameters and behavioral uncertainty, more context is needed to be complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'context_length') with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Simple search for documents matching a specified text query across all files in the vault.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('documents'), and scope ('across all files in the vault'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'obsidian_complex_search' beyond the 'simple' qualifier, which is somewhat vague.

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 some guidance: 'Use this tool when you want to do a simple text search.' This implies usage context but doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'obsidian_complex_search' or other search-related siblings. It offers basic direction but lacks clear exclusions or comparisons.

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