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. While 'Generate' implies a read/aggregation operation rather than mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the summary takes (text, structured data, etc.), whether it's computationally expensive, or if there are rate limits. The description mentions what content is included but not how it's presented or any limitations.

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 (one sentence with three clear content areas) and front-loaded with the core action 'Generate weekly summary.' Every element earns its place by specifying what the summary contains. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does but lacks important context about the output format, behavioral characteristics, and usage guidelines. The description would need to compensate more for the missing annotations and output schema to be considered complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (the single 'date' parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain how the date parameter affects the summary generation or provide examples of date formatting beyond YYYY-MM-DD.

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: 'Generate weekly summary' with specific content areas (completed/pending tasks, dailies filled, project progress). It distinguishes from siblings like weekly_create (which presumably creates rather than generates summaries) and other task/project tools that operate at different granularities. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like daily_get or notes_list.

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 generate a weekly summary versus using daily_get for daily information, tasks_list for task overviews, or weekly_create for creating new weekly entries. There's no indication of prerequisites, timing considerations, or exclusion criteria.

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