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 'case-insensitive' search behavior, which is useful, but lacks other critical details like whether it returns partial matches, supports wildcards, handles pagination, or describes the output format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, followed by a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language, making it highly 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 moderate complexity (search operation), no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like search scope limitations or performance hints, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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: it explains that 'query' is a 'Search string (case-insensitive),' which clarifies the parameter's purpose and behavior beyond the schema's basic type (string). With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this compensates well, though it could note query syntax or examples.

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: 'Full-text search across all markdown notes in the vault.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('markdown notes'), and scope ('all...in the vault'), distinguishing it from siblings like search_by_tag (tag-based) or list_files (no 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 full-text search across notes, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like search_by_tag (tag-based) or get_recent_notes (recency-based). It provides clear context (searching markdown notes) but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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