obsidian_get_vault_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the return format (JSON with tag counts, link analysis), which is helpful, but it does not disclose that the operation is read-only (non-destructive) or mention any prerequisites or error conditions. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise and well-structured, using an Args/Returns format that is easy to parse. Every line is informative, with no redundant text.

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 tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of the return value ('tag counts, link analysis') which is sufficient. It could mention that the vault must exist, but the output schema likely covers the exact structure. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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 description adds value beyond the input schema: it explains that 'vault' is a 'Name or path of the vault,' whereas the schema only provides a title and type. With 0% schema description coverage, this parameter description compensates effectively.

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 'Get comprehensive statistics about a vault,' specifying both the action and the resource. It further distinguishes the tool by listing specific contents like tag counts and link analysis, differentiating it from similar sibling tools like obsidian_get_vault_info.

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. While the description implies it for detailed statistics, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for basic vault info. With many sibling tools, this lack of usage context is a gap.

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