obsidian_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (file matches with line numbers), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, case sensitivity, match semantics, or whether the limit caps matches per file or overall.

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 action front-loaded and no filler. It is under-informative rather than bloated, so brevity here is only partly a virtue.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description at least declares the return values, which is the main gap it fills. However, with zero schema description coverage it should also clarify query syntax and limit behavior to be fully actionable.

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 both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'query' and 'limit' are never explained — no guidance on syntax, escaping, or what the limit applies to (files vs. lines).

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 (search), resource (vault), and method (full-text), plus what is returned (file matches and line numbers). It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like obsidian_find_notes or obsidian_search_context, though it never names or contrasts them.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as obsidian_search_context or obsidian_find_notes, which an agent must choose between. The agent is left to infer the selection criteria.

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