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 mentions 'context lines' which hints at output format, but doesn't describe critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ranked, if there's pagination, or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 functionality ('full-text search across the vault') and adds a useful detail ('with context lines'). There's zero wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 (search with three parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., matches with context), how results are structured, or any limitations. For a search tool without structured output documentation, this leaves too much undefined.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (query, folder, limit) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as query syntax examples or folder path formats. 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 performs 'full-text search across the vault' with 'context lines', which specifies the verb (search), resource (vault), and scope (full-text with context). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'notes_list' or 'inbox_list' that might list content without search functionality.

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. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like 'notes_list' for browsing or 'inbox_search' (if existed), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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