Obsidian MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions generating a 'narrative tour' but doesn't explain what that output looks like, whether it's read-only or modifies notes, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Generate a narrative tour') and efficiently specifies the scope ('through linked notes starting from a seed note'). There's no wasted language, and every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity of generating a narrative tour with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'narrative tour' entails, how linked notes are selected or ordered, what 'supporting' and 'counterpoint' notes mean in context, or what the output format will be. This leaves too many open questions for effective tool use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond implying a 'seed note' starting point. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context about how parameters interact.

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 verb ('Generate a narrative tour') and resource ('through linked notes starting from a seed note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'contextual_companions' or 'initiative_bridge' which might also involve note relationships, leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose this specific 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_backlinks', 'search_notes', or 'query_vault'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone without explicit context.

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