knowledge_viz

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

The annotation declares destructiveHint=false, covering the safety baseline. The description contributes useful extra context that the tool also rebuilds the project index as a side effect and emits Obsidian-native markdown. It still omits whether existing notes are overwritten or merged, and whether the index rebuild is conditional or guaranteed.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the primary write action and appends the index-rebuild side effect. No filler, though it is dense enough to blur the two distinct operations.

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 write/mutation tool with only a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the description should clarify persistence semantics (overwrite vs append), permission needs, and the relationship to knowledge_rebuild. None of that is present, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutating operation.

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% and both optional parameters (project auto-detection, workspace_path constraint) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so 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 states concrete actions — writing architecture/code notes in Obsidian markdown and rebuilding the project index. However, the name 'knowledge_viz' implies visualization and is not reconciled with the actual write behavior, and the sibling 'knowledge_rebuild' overlaps on index rebuilding without any 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not explain when to pick this over the sibling 'knowledge_rebuild' (which also rebuilds an index) or over 'write'/'capture' for persisting notes.

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