obsidian_search

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior; it does by explaining search behavior (full-text, line context) and the limit parameter ('max number of files to return'). This implies a read-only operation and gives the agent expectations about output scale. It doesn't detail the exact response structure, but the low-risk nature makes this 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 tight and well-organized: one purpose line, a short parameter list, and two examples. No redundant content; 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?

For a simple three-parameter search tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how to invoke it, and example usage. It lacks an explicit return schema, but the phrase 'line context' and 'files to return' gives enough for an agent to predict the output. Overall, it's complete for its complexity.

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 schema already describes all three parameters, but the tool description adds essential semantics: query 'supports Obsidian query syntax' and path 'restrict results to a folder path' clarifies the schema's terse 'Limit to folder.' Including worked examples also demonstrates usage.

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 'Full-text search across the vault with line context,' clearly stating the tool's verb (search), resource (vault), and a distinguishing detail (line context). This sets it apart from other Obsidian read tools like obsidian_read or obsidian_files.

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: this is the full-text search tool, so it's obvious when to use it. Examples show typical invocations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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