obsidian_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that empty args list all properties with counts, and that name requires file/path. It explains 'file' is for wikilink resolution, adding context beyond the schema. It does not mention error cases or return format, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line summary, compact parameter explanations, and concrete examples. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 tool is simple, but the description covers the main behaviors (list all, read one) and parameter interactions. Without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return structure, but the examples imply the shape. Adequate for an agent to invoke 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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it distinguishes 'file' (wikilink resolution) from 'path' (exact path), and clarifies the dependency for 'name'. Examples demonstrate valid parameter combinations, making the usage highly actionable.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List or read frontmatter properties.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like obsidian_property_set (which mutates) and obsidian_tags. The two modes (list all vs. read one) are explicitly described with examples.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to list all properties or read a specific one. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the parameter descriptions and examples imply the boundaries (e.g., use obsidian_property_set for changes). The dependency 'name requires file or path' provides usage guidance.

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