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 mentions the search behavior but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return format. The description doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Find') or other behavioral traits, leaving 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral disclosure, it lacks context on usage scenarios and operational constraints, making it just sufficient but with clear gaps.

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. The schema has 0% description coverage (only a title 'Tag'), but the description clarifies that the 'tag' parameter is 'Tag to search for (with or without leading #).' This provides crucial context on format flexibility, compensating 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 tool's purpose: 'Find all notes containing a specific tag.' This is a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('notes'), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'search_notes' by focusing on tag-based filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_tags' (which likely lists tags rather than notes with tags), keeping it at 4 instead of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'search_notes' (which might allow broader searches) or 'list_tags' (for listing tags themselves), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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