obsidian_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description, 'list tasks', aligns with that. However, it adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, sorting, or that it reads from the current vault). Since the annotation covers the main behavioral aspect, the description is adequate but not enhanced.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word is meaningful.

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 has 8 parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how parameters combine (e.g., can 'file' and 'path' be used together?), default behavior if no filters are set, or what the output looks like. For a moderately complex tool, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with all 8 parameters documented. The description adds no parameter-specific information (e.g., how filters interact, what 'format' means for output). With high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not improve it.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'tasks', and specifies scope ('in the vault or a specific file'). While it distinguishes from many siblings like 'obsidian_search' or 'obsidian_read', it could be more precise about what constitutes a 'task' (e.g., markdown checkboxes). Thus, it's clear but not maximally specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'obsidian_search' or 'obsidian_outline'. It does not mention prerequisites, filters, or when not to use it. Users must infer from the name and parameter names.

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