obsidian_graph_stats

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

Annotations indicate read-only and non-destructive, which is consistent. The description adds behavioral detail about the specific stats returned, going beyond annotations. It does not mention performance or output format, but given annotations cover safety, this is acceptable.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. Front-loaded with the action and resource, then lists outputs. Every word is necessary.

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 stats tool with good annotations and two parameters, the description covers key outputs. However, without an output schema, more detail on return format would improve completeness, but it's not critical.

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 describes 'vault' fully but leaves 'top' undescribed (50% coverage). The description mentions 'top connected notes', adding meaning to the top parameter. This compensates for the schema gap.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Return' and resource 'graph-level stats', listing specific outputs (node/edge counts, top connected notes, orphans, broken links). It differentiates from sibling tools like obsidian_vault_stats and obsidian_find_broken_links by aggregating multiple stats.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., obsidian_vault_stats, obsidian_find_orphans). The description only states what it does without usage context or exclusions.

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