Create Folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so by revealing that a hidden .gitkeep placeholder is written, which is non-obvious implementation detail. It lacks information about error handling (e.g., if the folder already exists) or permissions, but the core mechanism is transparent enough.

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 concise, with only two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and mechanism, and the second provides valuable context about Obsidian's behavior. No wasted words.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and how it behaves. It could mention potential failure modes or idempotency, but the current level of detail is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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 schema already provides full coverage (100%) with a clear description and example for the single folderPath parameter. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 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 action ('Create'), the target resource ('a new folder in the Obsidian vault'), and the mechanism (writing a hidden .gitkeep placeholder). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note and list_folders, which involve different actions or resources.

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 implicit usage guidance by noting that Obsidian creates folders on demand when files are written, implying this tool is only needed when a folder must exist independently. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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