Solid foundation with 14 well-named tools covering vault search, note retrieval, and spaced-repetition review. All tools have descriptions (avg 95 chars) and input schemas with types. However, output schemas are undocumented, LLMs cannot predict response structure for chaining. Parameter descriptions are present but often terse (avg 45 chars vs baseline 72). Error handling is minimal; no recovery guidance. Missing tool annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint). Naming is strong (verb_noun pattern, clear intent), but schema completeness and error guidance lag production standards.

• Document output schemas for all tools. E.g., search_notes should declare: returns {results: [{path, title, score, snippet}], total_count, next_cursor}. This enables LLMs to plan chaining and extract fields correctly.
• Add tool annotations: mark all read-only tools with readOnlyHint=true; mark delete_question and submit_review with destructiveHint=true; mark submit_review with idempotentHint=true (SM-2 updates are idempotent by design).
• Expand parameter descriptions to 60 - 100 chars. E.g., 'Filter by tag: partial match against note frontmatter tags. Use when searching for a topic area (e.g., "python"). Combine with folder for narrower results.' This guides LLM selection.
• Add error recovery guidance. E.g., get_note: 'If note not found, try search_notes() with a partial title. If search returns no results, check vault path and file extensions.'
• Implement pagination for list tools: add offset/limit or cursor-based pagination; return total_count and next_cursor. Cap default limit at 20 - 50 to prevent context window exhaustion in large vaults.