obsidian_get_file_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the returned fields (size, timestamp, metadata), which is real behavioral content. But it says nothing about whether the path must exist, error behavior for missing paths or directories, or how 'metadata' relates to note frontmatter — notable gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 with zero filler, immediately paired with the concrete returned fields. Nothing in it is redundant.

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 1-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return fields but omits the path semantics and existence/error behavior, and 'metadata' remains undefined relative to obsidian_get_properties. It is minimally usable but leaves real gaps.

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 single required parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so the agent gets no guidance on path format (vault-relative vs absolute, note vs directory, extension requirements). With one undocumented param, this falls below the adequate baseline.

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 specific verb and resource ('Retrieves ... of a file') and enumerates the returned fields (size, modification timestamp, metadata), so the agent knows what it does. However, 'metadata' is ambiguous and could overlap with the sibling obsidian_get_properties, and the description never distinguishes itself from that sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, even though obsidian_get_properties, obsidian_read_note, and obsidian_list_files are nearby siblings an agent could easily confuse with this one. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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