obsidian_search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that matching is simple/literal text, leaving case sensitivity, whether titles are searched, result limits, ordering, and vault scoping entirely unstated for a read operation.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the resource plus matching mode are front-loaded. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits what the results look like (paths, snippets), the source vault default, and how it differs from the retrieval siblings, which an agent would need to choose 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'query' and 'vault_path' are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, escaping, or multi-term matching detail beyond that.

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?

States a clear verb ('search') and resource ('notes') and clarifies the matching mode as a 'simple text match', which hints at literal substring matching rather than semantic retrieval. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling obsidian_rag_query, so an agent must infer the distinction itself.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. obsidian_rag_query for semantic search, obsidian_list_notes for enumeration), and no prerequisites or exclusions. The parenthetical 'simple text match' is the only implicit usage signal.

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