obsidian_list_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that items are added as 'unchecked' and that it operates on a 'configured default vault,' which adds some context. However, it omits important behaviors like whether the list must already exist, whether it appends to the end, and any idempotency or side-effect details. The description is not egregiously opaque but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function and prerequisite actions.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description provides adequate context: it states what the tool does, when to use it, and how to resolve ambiguity about list names. It does not detail edge cases like duplicate handling or list creation, but the output schema likely covers return values. Slight gaps remain around behavioral specifics, but overall it is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only vaguely references the parameters: 'items' are 'unchecked items' and 'list_name' is a 'named list' in the default vault. It does not clarify the expected format of list_name (exact name vs. path) or items (e.g., markdown formatting). The little information provided is inferable from parameter names, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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: adding one or more unchecked items to an Obsidian list in the default vault. It uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('list'), and differentiates from sibling tools like obsidian_list_remove and obsidian_list_update by focusing on addition.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user asks to add items to a named list.' It also directs users to call obsidian_list_lists when the list name is uncertain, providing a clear alternative for name resolution. However, it does not explicitly exclude related tools like obsidian_append_note, so it misses some negative guidance.

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