obsidian_help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses exact behaviors for each input case: no topic returns a group verb index, verb name returns description and flags, doc slug returns reference prompt, and a collision rule is documented. This goes far beyond a typical tool description and covers edge cases, making it highly transparent.

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 appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, then uses compact sections for Parameters and Behavior, and closes with practical examples. Every sentence contributes information; there is no redundancy or filler, making it both concise and easy to scan.

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?

Despite having no output schema and only one optional parameter, the tool has multiple modes and a nontrivial collision rule. The description fully covers all behaviors, provides examples for each mode, and explains the edge case with reserved doc slugs. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in any scenario.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'topic' property is described as 'Verb name or reference-doc slug'), so baseline is 3. The description adds significant extra meaning: it explains that topic can be either a verb or slug, lists the reserved doc slugs, and clarifies collision handling. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema, justifying a 4.

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 verb+resource: 'Get Obsidian help: a live verb index from the CLI, or reference docs by slug.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like obsidian_read or obsidian_command, as it is the meta/help tool. The two modes (verb index vs. reference docs) are explicitly named.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (browse verbs, get help on a verb, or fetch a reference doc) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. It states no-arg usage for browsing and gives examples, but lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' statement. Context is clear, exclusions are absent—hence a 4 rather than a 5.

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