mcp-obsidian

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 discloses the tool's read-only nature (implied by 'Find') and the wikilink mechanism, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or output format (though an output schema exists). It adds some behavioral context but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and usage context, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like permissions or limitations, though the output schema mitigates this gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'path' parameter with meaning ('Relative path to the note') and an example ('e.g. 'Notes/My Note.md''), adding significant value beyond the schema's basic type definition. With only one parameter, this is sufficient for clarity.

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 specific action ('Find all notes that link to') and resource ('the given note via [[wikilinks]]'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_outlinks (which finds outgoing links) or get_orphans (which finds unlinked notes). It precisely defines the tool's scope and mechanism.

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 by specifying 'via [[wikilinks]]' and providing a path example, which helps differentiate it from tools like search_notes (general search) or get_frontmatter (metadata retrieval). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as get_outlinks for outgoing links.

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