get_vault_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose an environmental requirement (OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH), which is useful, but it does not describe the response format, whether files are included by default, or any side effects. Given it is a read operation, the lack of detail is a gap but not critical.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no fluff or redundant information. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. This is an example of ideal conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify what the returned tree structure looks like (e.g., nested objects, relative paths). However, for a straightforward 'get structure' tool with optional parameters and a clear prerequisite, the description is adequate for basic usage but lacks completeness regarding return format and edge cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (vaultId, maxDepth, includeFiles) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: getting the folder tree structure of the vault. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('folder tree structure'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files_in_vault (flat list) and list_files_in_dir (specific directory). However, it does not explicitly name any alternative tools, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 prerequisite (OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH must be set) and implies usage for retrieving folder hierarchy, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_files_in_vault or list_files_in_dir. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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