Search Obsidian Vault

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'Read-only,' 'Case-insensitive,' and details the return format (file path, line number, matching line), enhancing transparency beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence states the core purpose and case-insensitivity; the second describes the output. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return format. It does not mention behavior for empty results, edge cases, or performance, but for a straightforward search tool with clear annotations, this is sufficient.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the return format (file path, line number, line), which is not in the schema, aiding the agent in understanding the output structure.

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 performs 'case-insensitive full-text search across note bodies.' It specifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'note bodies,' and distinguishes from sibling tools like obsidian_read_note (reading a specific note) and obsidian_write_note (writing).

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, but does not explicitly list when to avoid or mention alternatives. However, given the sibling tool names, the context is fairly clear that this is for searching, not for reading or writing specific notes.

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