gc_obsidian_vault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals it 'enqueues' a reindex (implying async), which is useful behavioral context, and describes what 'status' returns (config and indexed chunk count). However, it doesn't disclose side effects, whether reindexing destroys prior state, resource requirements, or failure behavior.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by the action list. Every sentence earns its place. Minor redundancy ('Obsidian vault' appears twice) but overall tight and well-organized for a 1-parameter tool.

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 1-param enum tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core function and both actions adequately. However, it lacks context on whether this is read-only or mutating, how the vault path is configured, and what 'status' output format looks like. It's adequate but not comprehensive for a tool that can trigger a potentially heavy reindex operation.

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 coverage is 100%, with the single 'action' parameter fully enumerated. The description adds meaning by explaining what each enum value ('reindex' vs 'status') actually does, which goes beyond the schema's bare 'Action to perform'. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does supplement with contextual detail, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool indexes Obsidian vault .md files into the memory bank for retrieval via gc_recall. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming its integration point (gc_recall) and specifying the file type (.md). A slight weakness is that the title is null and the verb 'indexing' is somewhat general, but the resource and action are clear.

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 enumerates the two valid actions ('reindex' and 'status') with their meanings, which provides clear usage context. However, it doesn't offer guidance on WHEN to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., is an Obsidian vault path configured?) or any exclusions. The action enumeration is helpful but not a full when/when-not guide.

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