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. It explicitly states 'No external calls' and describes auto-extraction of description, reading time, slug, and tags. It also specifies the return format and common errors (VALIDATION_ERROR for unknown format). This covers key behavioral aspects thoroughly.

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 a single paragraph that packs important information efficiently: purpose, formats, features, return, and common errors. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity, but it remains effective.

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 8 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return value and extracted fields. It mentions common errors. The schema covers parameter meanings. The description is sufficient for an AI agent to use the tool, though edge cases (e.g., empty content) are not addressed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about auto-extraction from content but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. The explanation of auto-extraction is already implied by the schema descriptions.

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 generates frontmatter for specific SSGs and platforms, listing supported formats (hugo, jekyll, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('frontmatter'), and the scope is clearly defined. The tool is distinct from siblings like publish or save_draft.

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 mentions it is FREE and makes no external calls, which helps with usage decisions. It implies this is a utility step before publishing, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools (publish, save_draft, etc.) makes the use case clear.

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