search_frontmatter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only search operation but gives no detail on recursion behavior, default path, matching semantics, result limiting (max_results default 100), or how missing keys are handled, despite all of this being configurable in the schema.

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?

One efficient sentence with zero wasted words; the verb, resource, and scope are front-loaded. It is arguably under-sized relative to the tool's 6-parameter nested request model with 9 operators, but it earns its place and is easy to parse.

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?

The schema covers every parameter with descriptions and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values or field semantics. However, for a parameterized tool of this complexity, the single-sentence description leaves gaps — no guidance on topological scope, operator semantics in practice, or distinction from sibling search tools. Adequate, but clearly short of complete.

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 the schema already documents all six nested parameters thoroughly. The description's mention of 'key/value' maps to the key and value parameters, adding slight semantic emphasis, but it provides nothing beyond what the schema fields already describe. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (search), resource (notes), and scope (frontmatter key/value) in a single phrase. The frontmatter qualifier cleanly differentiates it from the sibling search_notes, which presumably searches full note content, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening schemas.

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 implies usage: use this tool when the search target is frontmatter metadata rather than note body content. However, it never explicitly names search_notes as the alternative or states when not to use this tool, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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