mcp-obsidian-planner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions listing and filtering, but lacks behavioral details like whether it returns all tasks at once or paginates, what happens if multiple scopes conflict, or if it requires specific permissions. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 front-loads the core action ('List tasks') and succinctly covers scope and filtering. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage but no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It covers the tool's purpose and basic usage, but lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints, which are important for a list tool with filtering options.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by summarizing scope options and filtering, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or interactions beyond what the schema specifies (e.g., how 'path' and 'folder' relate). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb 'List' and resource 'tasks', specifying the scope ('from a specific note, folder, or the entire vault') and optional filtering ('Filter by status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'notes_list' (lists notes) and 'vault_search' (general search), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'inbox_list' (which might list tasks in inbox).

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 through scope options (note, folder, vault) and filtering, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'inbox_list' for inbox tasks or 'vault_search' for broader searches. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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