Obsidian Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool checks reachability and authentication, but does not describe the outcome format (e.g., boolean, status object) or any potential errors/timeouts. It is adequate but lacks rich behavioral context.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations), the description is mostly complete for its purpose. However, without an output schema, it would be stronger if it mentioned the type of result returned, but the core behavior is clearly communicated.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource ('Obsidian Local REST API') and the two conditions being verified (reachability and authentication). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like obsidian_create or obsidian_read, which perform content operations.

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?

The description clearly establishes the tool's purpose, allowing an agent to infer it should be used to verify connectivity/authentication before other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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