obsidian_list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation via 'List', and adds context about the default vault and duplicate avoidance. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, which could be ambiguous given the mutation-heavy sibling set.

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 concise sentences: the first delivers the core purpose, the second adds actionable usage guidance. No redundant text or filler, 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?

Given the tool's simple no-parameter interface and the presence of an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description fully covers purpose and usage. It is complete for the level of complexity.

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 baseline is 4. The description avoids cluttering with parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none to explain.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('existing notes') with a specific scope ('configured default vault'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like obsidian_read_note (reading a single note) and obsidian_create_note (creating) by explicitly framing its purpose as a preliminary step to avoid duplicates.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: before creating or updating when the user gives an approximate note name. It implies when-not-to-use (when you have an exact name, use read_note) but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls just short of full explicit exclusions.

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