execute_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or what the command execution returns. This is a significant gap for a tool that can trigger arbitrary Obsidian actions.

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?

A single, direct sentence that conveys the core action and the crucial prerequisite. No filler or redundant 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?

For a single-parameter tool with a clear workflow, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, the identifier, and the prerequisite. The only gap is missing behavioral details like side effects or return values, but given the simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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?

The schema already documents the parameter fully (100% coverage), including the example and the 'use list_commands first' tip. The description adds no new meaning 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Execute'), a specific resource ('an Obsidian command'), and an identifier ('by its id'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on command execution rather than notes or files.

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 instructs to use list_commands first, providing a clear prerequisite and workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though list_commands is the obvious companion.

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