mcp-obsidian

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation ('List') and specifies the location scope, but doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, sorting, or error conditions. The description is accurate but lacks depth about behavioral traits.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope without any redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and where it operates. However, it could benefit from mentioning what format the templates are returned in or any special characteristics of the Templates folder.

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 the schema already fully documents the absence of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what the schema provides, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and scope.

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 all available templates') and the target resource ('in the vault's Templates folder'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_files or list_tags. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implicitly provides context by specifying the scope ('vault's Templates folder'), which helps differentiate it from general file listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_files or search_notes, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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