obsidian_query

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Find' implies a read operation and the matching mechanism is stated, but the description does not disclose whether matching is exact or partial, whether note contents or only metadata are returned, or what happens when no notes match. These behavioral traits are left 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?

One sentence plus an example carries the full message with zero waste. The core action and mechanism are front-loaded ('Find notes by frontmatter field values') and the example immediately clarifies the intended query pattern.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the sole source of context, yet it never states what the tool returns. It also fails to address how it relates to the overlapping sibling tools. For a low-complexity 2-parameter tool the core invocation is covered, but the missing return-value disclosure and the unaddressed sibling ambiguity leave it incomplete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents both parameters with example values ('status', 'type', 'project') and the case-insensitivity of 'value'. The description's example illustrates how field and value combine, which adds marginal illustrative value, but it does not meaningfully extend what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('notes'), and mechanism ('by frontmatter field values'), with a concrete example ('status = 'in-progress''). This clearly communicates what the tool does. However, with 15 siblings including obsidian_find and obsidian_search, the description does not explicitly differentiate itself, so an agent cannot rule out overlap with similarly named search-like tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use obsidian_query versus alternatives like obsidian_search, obsidian_find, or obsidian_list. The example implies a use case (filtering notes by frontmatter status) but no exclusion or alternative is named. An agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the tool name and mechanism.

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