obsidian_search_paths

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that no note bodies are read, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential case sensitivity, regex support, or result format, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that contains only essential information. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description lacks crucial details about query syntax, extension filtering, and return structure. It is insufficient for an agent to use the tool without additional inference.

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' described). The description does not elaborate on parameters like 'query' or 'extension', which are critical for using the tool correctly. With 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 'Search filenames and vault-relative paths without reading full note bodies' clearly states the verb (search), resource (filenames and paths), and a key differentiator (not reading bodies), distinguishing it from sibling tools like obsidian_search which likely search content.

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 implies usage when only path/filename information is needed, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Among siblings, there are related tools like obsidian_list_files and obsidian_search; no comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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