mcp-obsidian-planner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are paginated or sorted, or what happens if no filters are applied. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and filtering options with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with optional filters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results.

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 100%, with both parameters ('status' and 'area') well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning filtering by status or area, but doesn't provide additional semantic context like format examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'List projects with status, area, deadline. Filter by status or area.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('projects'), and key attributes returned (status, area, deadline). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'project_create' or 'tasks_list', which would require a 5.

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 context through 'Filter by status or area,' suggesting this tool is for retrieving projects with optional filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'tasks_list' or 'project_create,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves usage somewhat open to interpretation.

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