obsidian_read_many

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds truncation behavior via maxChars, but does not explain the effect of the 'format' parameter or error handling for missing paths. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence of 12 words, which is minimal and front-loaded. However, it omits important details about parameters and usage, making it less effective despite its brevity.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools (over 60). The description does not explain return values, error cases, or how to differentiate from similar tools like obsidian_read_note, obsidian_query_notes, or obsidian_search. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 description coverage is only 25% (only 'vault' has a description). The description mentions truncation, which relates to maxChars, but does not explain the meaning of 'paths', 'format', or provide additional semantic context. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 reads multiple notes and can truncate content. The verb 'read' and resource 'multiple notes' are specific, and it distinguishes from the sibling 'obsidian_read_note' which reads a single note.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as obsidian_read_note for single reads or obsidian_batch for other batch operations. The description does not include any when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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