obsidian_run_command

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by clarifying that effects vary—some commands only change the view, others modify notes or invoke plugins. It also discloses the return format and error behavior, adding context beyond the annotation flags. No contradictions found.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and efficiently covers usage, side effects, and return format in about six sentences. Every sentence adds actionable information with no 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?

Given the tool's complexity and the annotations (destructive, non-idempotent), the description adequately covers how to get valid IDs, what to expect in return, and the variability of side effects. It lacks specific examples of command IDs or edge cases, but for a generic runner this is sufficient.

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's properties (vault and command_id) each have descriptive text, so the schema already covers parameter meaning. The description only restates command_id as 'ID from obsidian_list_commands', adding minimal value. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it runs a command from Obsidian's command palette by ID. It distinguishes this from other tools by explicitly advising to 'prefer a specific tool when one exists' and by pointing to obsidian_list_commands for valid IDs, making it unambiguous which tool to use for generic command execution.

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 explicit usage guidance: check obsidian_list_commands for valid IDs, prefer a specific tool if one exists, and warns that effects depend on the command. This tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives and gives a clear decision procedure.

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