obsidian_list_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little: no statement that this is a read-only listing, no recursion behavior for subfolders, no ordering, no hidden-file handling, and no indication of what the result contains.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded; nothing wasted. It is terse rather than padded, which is appropriate for a simple list tool.

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?

A simple read-only tool with two optional params and no output schema, so the bar is low, but an agent still cannot tell whether the listing is recursive, what fields each entry carries, or whether it covers the whole vault by default.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's 'vault or a subdirectory' phrasing loosely maps to subfolder/vault_path but adds no format, default, or override-precedence detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('markdown files') and scope ('in the vault or a subdirectory'). It implicitly differentiates from obsidian_search_notes (list vs. search), but does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent choosing between this and obsidian_search_notes or obsidian_get_backlinks gets no routing signal beyond the verb itself.

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