Search Obsidian community themes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload (total match count, repo links, supported dark/light modes, screenshot URLs) plus the case-insensitive all-keywords match behavior. It omits anything about pagination interaction with the limit cap, rate limits, or whether the directory lookup is unauthenticated, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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, no filler: purpose and scope first, usage trigger second, return shape third. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 must describe the return values — and it does, covering match count, repo links, supported modes, and screenshots. Combined with 100%-documented parameters, an agent has everything needed to call this 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%, so the schema already documents query, mode, and limit fully; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces query semantics (keyword over name and author) and the dark/light mode values, but adds no syntax or matching detail beyond the schema.

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 (Search), resource (official Obsidian community theme directory), scale (~900 themes), and the fields searched (name and author). The theme-vs-plugin distinction separates it cleanly from the search_plugins/top_plugins/get_plugin siblings without needing to name them.

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?

"Use this before designing a new theme, or to recommend one" gives concrete triggering contexts rather than leaving usage implied. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions (e.g., when to prefer the plugin-directory siblings), so it is clear context but not full routing guidance.

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