get_frontmatter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly states the return scope ('all frontmatter fields including tags, aliases, and custom properties') and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention edge cases like missing frontmatter, but this is acceptable for a simple getter.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes useful information about return values without any fluff. It earns its place with every word.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the return value and clearly differentiates from other note-related tools. The only minor gaps are the lack of explicit read-only confirmation and behavior when frontmatter is absent, but these are not critical for such a basic operation.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient for understanding the parameter.

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 retrieves frontmatter (YAML metadata) from a note and lists the types of fields returned (tags, aliases, custom properties). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like read_note (whole note) and get_tags (only tags).

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need the parsed frontmatter metadata of a note. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the description makes the tool's purpose unambiguous enough that an agent can infer when to use it, especially given sibling tool names.

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