obsidian_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output (file paths and snippets) but lacks behavioral details such as case-insensitivity (already in schema), performance, or whether it's blocking. The schema's parameter descriptions cover case-insensitivity, but the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 that front-load the purpose and follow with guidance. No extraneous 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: it explains the search functionality and output. However, it could be improved by mentioning that results are ordered by relevance or that snippets contain surrounding text, but it is largely complete for a straightforward search.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the query parameter's purpose but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. The mention of 'file paths and snippets' is output, not parameter semantics.

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 tool's action (search), the resource (notes), and the output (file paths and snippets). It differentiates from sibling tools like obsidian_read (which reads a single note) and obsidian_list (which lists notes without search).

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 description explicitly advises using the tool before creating new notes to find existing relevant documentation. This provides a concrete use case, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when you know the exact note path).

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