obsidian_list_bases

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 states the scope ('all ... in the vault'), which hints at no filtering, but omits whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, and what the return format looks like.

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 that contains no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and immediately states the core action and scope.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is listed and the scope. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., file paths, names, or metadata), which would be helpful since no output schema exists to define it.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey. Per the rubric, zero parameters establish a baseline score of 4, and the description adds nothing that would contradict this.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('.base database schema files'), clearly identifying the file type and vault-wide scope. It distinguishes itself from generic listing tools by naming the '.base' extension, but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling obsidian_list_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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The description merely states what the tool does; an agent must infer that it is used to discover base files, and there is no mention of when not to use it versus obsidian_list_files or obsidian_query_base.

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