obsidian_check_app_running

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

The description explicitly states the return values ('true' if running, 'false' otherwise), which is transparent. No annotations are present, so the description adequately conveys the read-only nature of the check without side effects.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 simple boolean check with no parameters and a clear return value, the description is complete. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description already does so adequately.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, which is appropriate. According to the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'Obsidian application is currently running', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'obsidian_launch_app' which perform actions rather than checks.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, such as checking before launching or focusing the app.

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