obsidian_list_commands

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and idempotent. The description adds the prerequisite that Obsidian must be running with the Local REST API plugin, and discloses both the JSON return shape and the failure string format. This goes beyond what the annotations alone communicate.

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 compact, front-loaded with purpose, and uses clearly labeled sections for requirements, returns, and arguments. Every sentence earns its place without verbose filler.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, exact return shape, failure format, and parameter semantics. The agent has everything needed to call it correctly without requiring additional context.

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 restates the single optional vault parameter with its purpose, but adds little over the schema's own property description. With only one optional parameter and a clear default, this is adequate; the low schema coverage signal does not create a real gap here.

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 begins with a specific verb-resource pair, 'List every command in Obsidian's command palette', and explicitly mentions IDs for running them, which differentiates it from sibling note/vault tools and connects it to obsidian_run_command. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool—when the agent needs an inventory of commands and their IDs before invoking them—and states the runtime prerequisite (Obsidian running with Local REST API plugin). It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the command-ID wording makes the relationship to obsidian_run_command evident.

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