search_frontmatter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal whether the search is case-insensitive, whether it only matches exact keys, or what happens when 'value' is null (e.g., finds all notes that have the key regardless of value, or only those with null value). It also doesn't specify the return format or pagination behavior, which is a gap for a search 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 one sentence, extremely concise, and front-loads the main action ('Find notes') and the key concept ('frontmatter key'). It avoids any redundancy or fluff, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's primary functionality.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, search behavior) and that there is no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It covers the basics but misses important details like the behavior when 'value' is null, whether the search is exact-case sensitive, and how results are sorted or limited. For a search tool where precision matters, this is a gap, but it is not fatally incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description effectively explains the 'key' and 'value' parameters (key is the frontmatter key to search, value is an optional exact value to match). It implicitly suggests that 'value' being null might mean 'any value', but it doesn't explicitly define the behavior for null or the 'limit' parameter (though 'limit' is self-explanatory). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type definitions.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('notes'), and clarifies the core behavior: searching by a frontmatter key, with an optional exact value match. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_notes' (full-text search) and 'search_by_tag' (tag-based search), though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to find notes based on a specific frontmatter key, potentially with an exact value. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives such as 'search_notes' for content search or 'search_by_tag' for tags. There is also no guidance on limitations like case-sensitivity or partial matching.

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