mcp-obsidian

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation and mentions the default behavior, but doesn't cover important aspects like error handling, permissions required, rate limits, or what happens if the note doesn't exist. This represents significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides parameter details in a clear, bullet-like format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter, the description covers the basics adequately. However, for a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally mention what happens when the note doesn't exist or other edge cases. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline, but gaps remain.

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 description adds substantial value beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the parameter's purpose ('Date in YYYY-MM-DD format'), default behavior ('Defaults to today'), and provides format specifics that aren't in the schema. For a single parameter tool with poor schema coverage, this is quite helpful.

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 with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('daily note'), and specifies the date parameter context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_note' or 'get_recent_notes', which limits the score to 4 rather than 5.

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 mentioning 'defaults to today' and the date format, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_note' or 'get_recent_notes'. This leaves usage somewhat ambiguous, warranting a score of 3.

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