get_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that the tool returns a JSON string with metadata or an error description, giving an agent a clear expectation. It does not explicitly confirm non-mutation, but the 'get' verb and metadata focus make the read-only behavior unambiguous enough for this simple tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, one required arg, and a return behavior. There is no extraneous text, and the Args/Returns structure makes the information scannable.

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?

For a single-parameter getter with an output schema, this is nearly complete. It specifies the path semantics and the return/error behavior. A clearer statement about behavior when frontmatter is absent would make it fully airtight, but that is a minor gap.

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 only defines note_path as a string, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description fills this gap completely by specifying 'Path to the note relative to vault root,' which is exactly what an agent needs to construct a valid call.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the frontmatter metadata from a note as JSON.' This clearly separates it from siblings like read_note (full note content) and update_metadata (mutation).

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 purpose implies when it is appropriate—when only frontmatter/metadata is needed—but there is no explicit 'use this instead of read_note' or any exclusions/alternatives. Usage context is inferred, not stated.

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