Run Obsidian CLI Command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows commands may mutate state. The description adds valuable context that permanent delete, eval, and dev controls are blocked, which is a safety-relevant limitation beyond the annotations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by safety restrictions. Every word carries meaning; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

This is a high-risk, arbitrary command execution tool, yet the description omits examples, arg construction rules, or scenarios where it should NOT be used. The output schema exists but doesn't compensate for the missing usage semantics, making the description incomplete for an agent to safely and correctly invoke commands.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but only says 'using an argument array', which adds almost no meaning beyond the schema's array-of-strings definition. It does not explain how to order args, whether the first element is the command name, or what timeoutMs controls.

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 uses a specific verb 'Run' and identifies the resource as 'Obsidian CLI or plugin commands', clearly distinguishing it from sibling note/task tools. It also communicates the scope ('broad') and blocked categories, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_note' or 'vault_overview'. The only implied guidance is the word 'broad', and the blocked categories (permanent delete, eval, dev controls) are restrictions, not usage directions.

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