obsidian_eval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the prerequisite (CLI enabled) but omits potential side effects, safety risks, or that arbitrary code execution can modify the vault. This is a significant gap for an eval tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and runtime requirement. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., evaluation result) or error behavior, which is relevant for a code execution tool. It is minimally adequate but leaves 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 schema already covers the single parameter 'code' with an adequate description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating that the code is JavaScript. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action ('Execute JavaScript') and the target ('Obsidian API'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like obsidian_search or vault_reindex. It is a specific verb+resource construction with no ambiguity.

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 a clear prerequisite context: requires Obsidian running with CLI enabled. This implies when to use the tool (when Obsidian is available) but does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not scenarios. It is clear context without exclusions.

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