obsidian_list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden. It discloses default status (todo), default vault behavior, and scope (lists tasks, not files or notes). This conveys the read-only nature implicitly and adds useful context about how the tool behaves by default, even though it doesn't discuss edge cases like pagination or limit handling.

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?

Three sentences pack purpose, usage, and default behavior with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds information. This is concise and well-structured.

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 has an output schema (thus return format is already defined), the description is complete enough: it covers purpose, when to use, and default behavior. It mentions vault selection and task statuses, covering most relevant scenarios. It could add a mention of the limit parameter, but that's a minor gap given the output schema and straightforward functionality.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains status values (pending, completed, cancelled, all) and mentions vault (default vault), but does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. Since limit is a common parameter and schema only provides the name, description partially compensates but leaves one parameter ambiguous, so score stays average.

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 it lists structured Obsidian Tasks-compatible tasks from a vault, which is a specific verb+resource (list tasks). It also differentiates from siblings by focusing on tasks rather than notes, lists, or other operations, and mentions statuses (pending, completed, cancelled, all) that align with the tool's unique role.

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 says 'Use when the user asks what tasks/todos/reminders are pending, completed, cancelled, or all,' providing clear context on when to invoke. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is specific and distinguishes this from siblings like obsidian_list_lists or obsidian_read_inbox.

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