obsidian_list_vaults

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe read ('Lists') and discloses the source of the list plus the fields returned, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether vaults are filtered, or any side effects, and the truncation removes whatever came last.

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 front-loaded sentence is appropriately sized, but it is visibly truncated mid-word ('and n...'), leaving the field list incomplete and the sentence structurally broken. Still efficient, but the cut-off is a real defect.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should carry the return-value details, and it attempts this by naming id, name, and folder path. The truncation leaves the enumeration unfinished, so an agent cannot rely on the field list being complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain inputs; it instead spends its words on outlined return fields (id, name, folder path), which is where an agent needs help here.

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 clear verb+resource pair ('Lists the Obsidian vaults on this computer') and names the data source ('from Obsidian's own list of vaults'), which separates it from siblings like obsidian_read_note and obsidian_search_notes. The description is notably truncated ('and n...'), which slightly undercuts an otherwise crisp purpose.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is offered. The intended workflow (discover a vault before reading/searching notes) is only inferable; nothing in the text guides selection against the other obsidian_* tools.

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