obsidian_list_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions returning a JSON array of note information but does not specify details like fields, pagination, or limitations. The read-only nature is implied by 'list' but not explicitly stated.

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 a concise docstring with separate Args and Returns sections. The main purpose is front-loaded as the first sentence, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return structure. However, it could mention that it lists all notes in the folder without content filtering, and whether there is any limit or pagination. The coverage of parameters and return type is adequate.

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 0%, but the description explains each parameter: vault (name/path), folder (optional subfolder with example), and include_attachments (whether to include non-markdown files). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema which only has types and defaults.

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 tool lists all notes in a vault or specific folder, specifying the verb 'list', the resource 'notes', and the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like obsidian_search_notes which filter by content or tags.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like obsidian_search_notes or obsidian_find_notes_by_tag. It does not mention any exclusions or context for selection among the many sibling tools.

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