obsidian_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavior beyond the basic operation by explaining that short notes are returned in full while longer notes show surrounding context. It does not detail output format or limitations, but the key behavioral trait is covered.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the main action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful behavioral context.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description covers scope and result behavior well, especially with no output schema present. The only gaps are minor details like result limits, ordering, or exact match behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'query' and 'context_lines', including a default for context_lines. The description only echoes the query concept as a 'text string' and adds no parameter-level detail 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?

States a specific verb ('search'), a resource ('all notes'), and an object ('text string'), making the core action clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like obsidian_find or obsidian_query, which could overlap with a full-text search tool.

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 'Search all notes for a text string' implies this is for vault-wide full-text search, so usage is inferable. But there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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