mcp-obsidian-planner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the grouping behavior by priority categories, which is useful, but doesn't describe other important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether it includes all items or is paginated, or any performance characteristics.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It specifies the grouping behavior, which is helpful, but doesn't describe the return format or any limitations. Without annotations, it should ideally mention that this is a read operation and what the output structure looks like.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds value by specifying the grouping behavior, which isn't captured in the parameter schema.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('inbox items'), specifying the grouping by priority categories. It distinguishes from siblings like inbox_add (adds items) and inbox_process (processes items), but doesn't explicitly contrast with notes_list or tasks_list which list different resource types.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to use inbox_list versus notes_list or tasks_list, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual triggers for listing inbox items.

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