obsidian_find

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool performs fuzzy matching on titles and returns paths, which is important for an agent to understand the result semantics. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but the verb 'search' strongly implies non-destructive behavior.

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 with no filler. The action and return type are front-loaded, and the usage rationale is a single short phrase. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description states the return value is note paths, which is the key information an agent needs. The tool is simple with only two parameters and no nested objects, so the description is fairly complete. Minor missing details include path format (e.g., absolute vs vault-relative) and behavior when no matches are found.

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 100% for both parameters, with query described as 'Note title or partial name to search for' and limit as 'Max results to return'. The description adds 'fuzzy' and 'best matching' semantics, which slightly infers ranking, but it does not meaningfully expand on the schema's parameter explanations.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fuzzy search'), a clear resource ('note by title'), and states the output ('Returns the best matching note paths'). It distinguishes itself from path-based access and full-text search by emphasizing that it works by title and does not require knowing exact paths.

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 'More natural than knowing exact paths' implies when to use this tool, but the description does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives such as obsidian_search for content searches. Usage context is implied rather than instructed.

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