obsidian_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns version history (snapshots/sync revisions) and clarifies it is not a list of recent modifications. It also discloses the selection behavior (file or path). However, it does not describe what happens if both parameters are provided or if neither is provided, nor does it mention any error handling or permission requirements. These are minor omissions for a read-only listing tool.

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 opens with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by a brief explanatory paragraph, then lists parameters with concise descriptions, and ends with practical examples. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy. The format is front-loaded 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose, what it returns, how to select the note, and provides examples. The main gap is that it does not describe the structure or content of the returned version history (e.g., timestamps, list of versions), but it does give a high-level indication ('snapshots/sync revisions'). The distinction from recently-modified notes is crucial and well addressed. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly stating the requirement that one of file or path must be provided, clarifying that they are mutually exclusive options. It also provides illustrative examples showing exact usage, which help disambiguate parameter format beyond the schema's brief descriptors.

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 the tool 'List the saved file-history versions of a note' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it is 'not a list of recently-modified notes', which separates it from obsidian_recents. The scope (single note selected by file or path) is well defined.

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 usage context by stating what the tool does (returns version history) and what it does not do (recently-modified notes), implying when to use it over alternatives like obsidian_recents. It also gives explicit usage constraints: 'Provide one of file or path to select the note' and notes that one is required. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide 'when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use' guidance beyond the contrast.

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