export_obsidian

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose output structure (YAML frontmatter, wikilinks) and the return summary, but omits potential side effects such as overwriting existing files, creating directories, or requiring an existing vault. This leaves notable gaps for a write 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a clear first-sentence action, a brief format explanation, then Args/Returns. Every sentence contributes, with no redundant text or excessive length.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, output format, parameter default, and return type. The existence of an output schema covers return structure. However, it could improve by addressing whether the vault is created if missing or whether files are overwritten, which is relevant context for a file-writing operation.

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 description explains vault_path's purpose and default value, which the schema does not (0% schema coverage). However, there is a mismatch between the schema default (empty string) and the description's stated default (~/Semiconductor), introducing ambiguity and reducing the value of the added semantics.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Export' and resource 'knowledge graph' to 'Obsidian vault as Markdown files', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like query_knowledge or answer_question. It fully communicates the tool's function and output format.

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: 'Open the vault in Obsidian to browse and visualize the graph' indicates the intended use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though its unique export purpose makes the usage fairly obvious.

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