_obsidian_vault

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fully discloses behavior: checks environment variable and config file, validates existence on disk, returns Path or None. No side effects are mentioned, which is appropriate for a read-only lookup.

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?

Description is three well-structured paragraphs: first sentence states purpose, then explains context and lookup logic, then return type. Every sentence is necessary and no waste.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, straightforward return), the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, usage context, configuration sources, argument absence, return type, and mentions sibling tools for context.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, and description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments.' With no parameters, baseline is 4, and description adds no extra but also doesn't need to.

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?

Description clearly states the tool resolves the configured Obsidian vault path, specifying verb ('resolve') and resource ('vault path'). It distinguishes itself by mentioning it supports note-indexing sibling tools like kg_index_notes.

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?

Describes when to use the tool (before note-indexing) and explains the lookup order across environment variable and config file. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear given the helper role.

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