obsidian_list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether the default (recursive=false) only returns one level, whether results are sorted, or whether large folders are paginated.

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 efficient sentence with the key resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concise.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return shape, the meaning of recursive, and whether the operation is safe/read-only. None of that is present, leaving the agent guessing about core behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters. The description implies the folder argument but never explains it (absolute vs. relative path, vault root behavior), and it completely omits the recursive flag, which materially changes the result set.

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 specific verb (lists) and resource (files and subdirectories under a vault folder), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like obsidian_find_notes or obsidian_search, which an agent might reasonably consider for the same discovery need.

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 guidance on when to use this versus obsidian_find_notes, obsidian_search, or obsidian_get_file_info. There is no mention of prerequisites, default behavior, or context for choosing a plain directory listing over a search.

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