get_vault_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one key behavioral trait—'Only shows directories, not individual files'—and implies a read-only operation via 'Get'. However, it does not mention the default max depth (5) or the maximum (10), the handling of empty paths, or the exact return format (e.g., JSON nesting). These gaps leave some behavior unspecified.

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 three short sentences, each serving a purpose: the first states the primary action, the second explains when it's useful, and the third clarifies scope. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no fluff, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The schema documents parameters well, but the description does not specify the exact return structure (e.g., whether it returns nested JSON, markdown, or a list). The phrase 'tree-like structure' is somewhat vague, and without an output schema, the description should explain what the agent will receive. It is adequate but not fully 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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters: path ('Starting directory path. Leave empty for entire vault.') and maxDepth ('Maximum depth to show (default: 5).'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning. A baseline of 3 is warranted.

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 function: 'Get a tree-like structure of folders in the Obsidian vault.' It specifies the resource (folders in the vault) and the output format (tree-like structure). The clarification 'Only shows directories, not individual files' distinguishes it from sibling file-listing tools like list_files and list_all_files.

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 phrase 'Useful for understanding the vault organization' provides clear context on when to use the tool. The note that it 'Only shows directories, not individual files' implies it should be used for folder structure rather than file content listing, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusions. This is clear context without explicit alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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