obsidian_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The action 'List' implies a non-destructive read operation, but the description does not disclose whether the listing is recursive, the output format, or any pagination behavior. It is minimally transparent but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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: a one-sentence purpose, a parameter list, and examples. It is concise with no redundant information, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters, it covers the purpose and parameters well. However, it omits return value details and does not mention whether folder filtering is recursive. The lack of an output schema increases the need to describe the return format, which is absent.

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 both parameters (folder, ext) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by clarifying the extension format with examples ('md', 'canvas') and showing usage through examples, which helps the agent know how to pass the parameters. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('files in the vault or a specific folder'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like obsidian_read (read a file) and obsidian_search (search content), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly states when to use the tool ('List files in the vault or a specific folder') and provides examples with optional filters. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know it's for enumeration, not content search.

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