obsidian_help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral trait beyond the annotations: that omitting topic yields a topic index. It discloses nothing about rate limits, output format, or failure modes.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the tool's identity followed by the parameter instruction; no filler. It is arguably too terse for a help tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With only one optional parameter and an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Still, the definition gives the agent no sense of what topics are available or what the manual covers, leaving discovery entirely to trial calls.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. It does explain the optionality semantics — omitting topic returns the topic index, implying topic selects a specific entry — but it never says what valid topic values look like or how to discover them, so the compensation is partial.

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 names a specific resource (a usage manual / help documentation), which is clearly distinct from the vault-operation siblings like vault_read and vault_write. It stops short of stating an explicit verb or the scope of the manual, but an agent can identify it as the documentation tool without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is only implied — the agent is expected to infer that this is the tool to call when it needs documentation. The clause 'omit topic for the topic index' does give one concrete invocation instruction, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance beyond that.

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