obsidian_query_base

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, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, required permissions, pagination, or output shape. "Queries" weakly implies a read operation, which is the only behavioral signal present.

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 single sentence is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise — it spends its few words without conveying the information an agent needs, so brevity does not earn its place here.

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, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description leaves the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly. A two-parameter query tool needs at least an explanation of path and view semantics.

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% and both parameters (path, view) are undocumented in the schema. The description only faintly gestures at them via ".base" and "view", adding essentially no meaning about formats, defaults, or what the view string selects.

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 names a verb ("Queries") and a resource ("a .base database view"), so it is more than a tautology, but it never explains what a .base view is, what a query returns, or how it differs from the sibling obsidian_list_bases. An agent gets a rough idea but cannot confidently distinguish it from adjacent tools.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as obsidian_list_bases or obsidian_read_note. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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