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 behavioral trait of finding notes based on specific linkage criteria, but does not add context on permissions, rate limits, or output format. The description is accurate but lacks depth 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and criteria with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for its purpose. It clearly defines what the tool does, though it could benefit from slight elaboration on usage context or output expectations to achieve full completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add param details beyond the schema, but this is acceptable as the baseline is high for zero parameters, and it focuses on the tool's purpose instead.

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') and resource ('notes') with precise criteria ('with no incoming backlinks and no outgoing wikilinks'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_backlinks, get_outlinks, and search_notes by focusing on isolation rather than linkage or general search.

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 for identifying isolated notes, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_backlinks or get_outlinks for related queries, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some guidance gaps.

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