obsidian_vault_stats

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already confirm safe, read-only behavior. The description adds the scope of returned data but does not disclose any additional behaviors (e.g., caching, performance). With annotations covering safety, the description contributes some context but not extensive behavioral detail.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and all key output categories. No unnecessary words, efficient for an agent to process.

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?

With no output schema, the description lists five output types but does not elaborate on 'vault totals' or 'graph health'. For a stats tool, this may be sufficient for basic understanding, but lacks detail for precise invocation. The two parameters are minimally explained.

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 coverage is 50% (vault described, top not). The description implies 'top' relates to 'top folders' but does not explicitly explain that it controls the number of top folders returned. It partially adds meaning beyond the schema but leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 explicitly lists the five output categories (vault totals, file extensions, top folders, word-count sample, graph health), providing a clear purpose. It distinguishes from sibling 'obsidian_graph_stats' which focuses only on graph stats. However, 'vault totals' is somewhat vague.

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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings like obsidian_graph_stats, obsidian_search, or obsidian_list_files. The description does not indicate scenarios or prerequisites, so the agent lacks decision criteria.

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