obsidian

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the command string is passed exactly as written (minus the binary name), that leading `vault=NAME` overrides and caches the vault, and it maps cut-and-paste verbs to operations. It does not explicitly warn about destructive side effects, but the inclusion of delete/move verbs and the phrase 'Run any Obsidian CLI command' imply full capabilities.

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?

Although the description is long, it is highly structured and front-loaded. The opening sentence states the purpose, the cheat sheet is organized by intent (PUT/GET/MOVE/DELETE/DISCOVER) with concise syntax, and each section earns its place. Nothing seems redundant or wasted.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: the supported verb families, example command constructions, vault override mechanics, and a fallback to the `help` verb. It gives an agent enough to invoke the tool for nearly any intended Obsidian operation.

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 input schema defines a single `command` property with a minimal description. The tool description enriches this by specifying the exact string format (full CLI command minus the binary name), the `vault=NAME` prefix behavior, and a cheatsheet that maps common intents to concrete command strings. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Run any Obsidian CLI command.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling convenience tools by stating that 'the convenience tools (`obsidian_*`) wrap the same verbs with typed args,' clarifying the scope and relationship.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the typed wrappers: use it for full CLI commands, and use the wrappers for typed arguments. It also directs users to the CLI's `help` verb as the source of truth for any unlisted intent, giving a clear fallback.

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