Search Obsidian community plugins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses the result shape (total match count plus top results), the ranking rule (sorted by downloads), and even an interpretation hint that an old last-update date 'means possibly abandoned.' It says nothing about rate limits, failures, or that the operation is a safe read, but for a public directory search the disclosure is above average.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the most important routing instruction ('use this BEFORE building') is front-loaded right after the scope statement. Dense but every clause adds an actionable fact.

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, and the description compensates by describing return contents, ranking, and how to interpret recency. Combined with the fully documented 2-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by naming exactly which fields the keyword matches (name, id, author, description) and noting results are download-sorted. The 'limit' parameter is left to the schema, which documents it adequately.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Search the official Obsidian community plugin directory (~9000 plugins) by keyword over name, id, author, and description.' The verb 'search' plus the directory scope makes it easy to separate from get_plugin (fetch one) and top_plugins (ranking list), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives clear triggering conditions: 'Use this BEFORE building or proposing any Obsidian plugin or feature, to check whether it already exists, and whenever someone asks which plugin to use.' This is strong proactive guidance, but there is no when-not condition and no explicit routing to top_plugins or get_plugin for adjacent needs.

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