mcp-obsidian-planner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a task, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool, warranting a low score.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, and usage context, making it inadequate for full understanding despite the concise structure.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented there. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'section' parameter defaults to 'Tareas', but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Add a new task') and target resource ('to a note in the Tareas section'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'inbox_add' or 'task_toggle', which might also involve task management, so it doesn't reach the highest score for sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inbox_add' or 'task_toggle', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for adding tasks to notes, but lacks explicit context for tool selection.

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