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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the extraction action but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or the format of extracted links. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

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, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error handling or permissions, especially with no annotations.

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 meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'path' is a 'Relative path to the note,' clarifying its purpose and format. With only one parameter, this provides adequate compensation for the schema's lack of description, though it could specify path examples or constraints.

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 ('Extract all [[wikilinks]]') and resource ('from a note'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_backlinks (which likely extracts incoming links) or read_note (which reads content). It precisely defines the tool's scope without being vague or tautological.

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 by specifying what it extracts (wikilinks from a note), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_backlinks or search_notes. It provides some context but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives, leaving room for interpretation.

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