extract_dataview_fields_tool

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

No annotations provided, so description fully bears the burden. It details three syntax variants, value type detection, code block skipping, and performance metrics (<100ms/note, 10k fields/sec). Also states return structure, ensuring transparency.

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?

Well-organized with sections: purpose, syntax variants, behavior, use cases, performance, return. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with key purpose.

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 no output schema, description fully explains return values (fields, keys, values, types, syntax, line numbers). Covers performance and edge cases (code blocks). Complete for an extraction tool.

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 coverage is 67% (file_path and vault_path have descriptions, ctx only has title). Description adds little beyond schema; vault_path default behavior is implied in schema. For ctx, no additional meaning. Baseline 3 due to coverage.

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 action ('Extract all Dataview inline fields'), the resource ('from a note'), and distinguishes from siblings like execute_dataview_query_tool and search_by_dataview_field_tool by focusing on field extraction and offline capability.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' scenarios (extracting metadata, auditing, migrating), though lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives. Still, the context is clear and covers primary use cases.

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