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 describes the basic behavior (listing files and folders) and includes a default value for the path parameter, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral context.

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 explanation of the parameter. There is no wasted text, and the structure efficiently communicates essential information without redundancy.

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 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics adequately. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like error handling or output examples.

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 context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'path' is a 'Relative path within the vault to list' and defaults to 'the vault root', clarifying usage that the schema alone does not provide. With only one parameter, this compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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 ('List files and folders') and resource ('inside the vault or a subdirectory'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_notes' or 'get_recent_notes' which have different purposes. It explicitly mentions the scope of listing contents, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context by specifying that it lists files and folders in the vault or a subdirectory, which helps differentiate it from tools like 'search_notes' (which searches content) or 'list_tags' (which lists tags). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as 'get_recent_notes' for recent files only.

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