search_obsidian

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: the search connects via Tailscale, returns specific fields (title, path, excerpt), and requires env vars. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences pack the core purpose, data source, output fields, and requirements. Every part earns its place with no wasted words, and the critical action is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers tool purpose, constraints (env vars), and output structure. It is nearly complete, though could briefly mention that the search is full-text (stated only in schema).

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both 'query' and 'limit' parameters. The main description does not add new parameter information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 it searches a local Obsidian vault and returns notes with specific fields (title, path, excerpt). It distinguishes from sibling search tools like 'deep_search' or 'search_knowledge' by mentioning the local vault and plugin, but does not explicitly contrast usage.

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 mentions required environment variables, implying the tool is only usable when those are set, but provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling search tools (e.g., 'deep_search', 'search_by_date_range'). No when-not or alternative advice is given.

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