Execute an Obsidian Base — return matching notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds significant behavioral details: version history, supported DSL syntax, fail-closed behavior for unsupported expressions, return of unevaluated_predicates, and the change in behavior permissiveness. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose but includes extensive version history and DSL details that, while useful, may be more than necessary. Could be slightly more concise, but provides valuable detail for correct usage.

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 complexity of the DSL and multiple parameters, the description covers return values (matching paths + frontmatter), error handling (unevaluated_predicates), and version changes. No output schema exists, so the description adequately explains what the tool returns.

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 good descriptions. The tool description adds context about parameter interactions (AND combination of view and global filter, folder as extra scope), but this does not significantly exceed the schema's own descriptions.

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 runs a .base file's filter against markdown notes, returning matching paths and frontmatter. It distinguishes itself from sibling obsidian_search by noting this is for explicit saved queries, not retrieval-quality search.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use this tool (explicit saved queries) and contrasts with obsidian_search. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list prerequisites beyond having a .base file.

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