Surface open questions across the vault

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it scans all notes (walks every note), returns results sorted oldest-first, and mentions ReDoS protection for custom patterns. These details are beyond what annotations provide and are accurate.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides essential information: what it does, what it returns, sorting, and a common usage pattern. No wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return value structure (source, heading, line number, age) and sorting order. It covers edge cases like ReDoS safety and optional prefixes. Given the tool's simplicity and the thorough description, it is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining the default pattern (matching Open question:/Q:/TODO?/?? with optional prefixes) and the ReDoS rejection for pattern overrides. This additional context helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond schema alone.

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 action ('Walks every note for lines matching deferred-thinking markers') and specifies the output format ('Returns each hit with source, the heading it lives under, line number, and age in days'). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like obsidian_search, which do general text search, and obsidian_frontmatter_search, which targets frontmatter.

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 context for when to use this tool (research-PKM pattern for surfacing open questions) and implies it is not for general search. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools. The sibling list is large, so a clearer exclusion would improve the score.

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