Evaluate JavaScript in Obsidian

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

The description warns that the tool 'can read/modify any vault data and execute side effects,' which aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true). It adds context about the `app` object beyond 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 extremely concise with two sentences: one for purpose and one for usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and achieves maximal information density.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, danger, and usage guideline. It could mention return value format, but it remains fairly complete for a powerful tool.

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 has 100% coverage for all three parameters. The description does not add significant detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool evaluates arbitrary JavaScript in Obsidian with access to the `app` object. It distinguishes itself from siblings by the verb 'runs' and the unique capability of code execution.

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 explicitly says 'Use only when no narrower tool fits,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not list specific sibling tools, but the context implies caution.

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