obsidian_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explicitly explains that the tool returns structured JSON (array of task objects with status, text, file, line) alongside a text form, which goes beyond a simple 'list' statement. This gives clients confidence in the return format, though it does not cover potential edge cases like empty results or permission requirements.

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 with a clear one-sentence purpose, a brief note on return format, a concise parameter list, and illustrative examples. Every section earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lacking an output schema, the description explicitly defines the return structure and includes examples. It covers the tool's purpose, all optional parameters, and the JSON/text dual format. It does not mention default behavior when no filters are applied or what happens with no matching tasks, but for a simple listing tool this is sufficient. The inclusion of examples greatly aids completeness.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The description restates these with slightly more context (e.g., 'today's daily note tasks') and adds examples showing how to combine parameters. This adds marginal value over the schema, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific action 'List tasks from vault notes', clearly identifying the resource (vault notes) and the operation (listing tasks). It also notes the structured JSON output, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like obsidian_search or obsidian_read. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 examples and filter parameters (daily, todo, done, path) that imply typical use cases, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The usage context is evident from the name and examples, but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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