obsidian_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions that it triggers commands 'exactly as the user would from the command palette,' but it does not warn that commands can have destructive or irreversible side effects (e.g., deleting files, modifying settings). This is a significant omission for a tool that executes arbitrary commands, as the agent may unknowingly perform harmful actions.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and then providing supplementary details. It is concise, with no unnecessary fluff. The inclusion of a 'Parameters' section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is brief and helps reinforce the example. Overall, every sentence contributes value, earning a 4.

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?

The description covers the main usage aspects: what it does, how to find command IDs, and includes examples. However, it lacks information about the tool's return value or output (whether it returns anything after executing the command), and it does not discuss potential failure modes or side effects. Given the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, these gaps make it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 already describes the `id` parameter with 100% coverage, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it introduces the concept of a 'canonical command ID', gives concrete examples (e.g., 'editor:toggle-bold'), and explains how to discover valid IDs using the `obsidian` tool's `commands` verb. This enriches the parameter semantics substantially.

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 specific, action-oriented statement: 'Execute an Obsidian command by its canonical command ID.' It clearly identifies the resource (Obsidian commands) and the operation (execute), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like obsidian_read or obsidian_search by focusing on command execution. Examples of command IDs further solidify the purpose.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to trigger any core or plugin command exactly as from the command palette. It also explicitly directs users to the generic `obsidian` tool with the `commands` verb for discovering IDs, which is an effective alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternatives, which is a minor gap.

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