get_obsidian_structure

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

Even with no annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: the runtime never reads or writes local vault files. It also labels the result as 'static,' indicating no live state. It stops short of describing the output format, so it does not earn a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a clarifying limitation, with no filler or redundant content.

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 parameterless read-only retrieval call, the description says what it returns and the key safety restriction. A fuller description of the specification's contents would improve completeness, but nothing needed to invoke the tool 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 description cannot add parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is a 4.

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 opens with the verb 'Return' and names a specific resource, 'static Obsidian vault specification.' The 'static' qualifier and the explicit 'runtime never reads or writes local vault files' clearly separate it from sibling read/write tools.

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 'Specification only' clause sets an explicit scope: this tool is for obtaining the static spec, not live vault state. It does not name alternative tools or provide a when-not condition, but the zero-parameter read-only nature makes the intended use clear.

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