list_commands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that the result is unconditional ('all available'), which implies no filtering or pagination, but says nothing about the shape of the return (names? IDs?), whether listing is read-only, or whether the catalog is cached/static.

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 front-loaded sentence with no preamble or filler. The trailing clause 'that can be executed' is mildly redundant but also scopes the result usefully, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the list contains and how it is consumed (e.g., that entries carry identifiers accepted by execute_command). For a tool whose entire value is the returned catalog, that omission leaves the agent guessing about the return format.

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?

The schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-related claims are made that could mislead.

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 ('List') and resource ('all available Obsidian commands'), so the agent immediately knows this is a discovery/enumeration tool. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements (execute_command) or say the output feeds into it, so differentiation is only implicit via the name.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The pairing with execute_command is implied by the name and by the phrase 'that can be executed', but the description never tells the agent to call this first to obtain a valid command identifier.

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