Read Dataview Fields

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

Annotations already provide read-only, non-destructive, idempotent hints. The description adds that the tool operates on the session-active vault unless an explicit vaultPath is given, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise, with front-loaded purpose and clear structure. It includes all necessary information without verbosity, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the two operations.

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 no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, operations, read-only nature, and vault selection. It is complete for the tool's complexity, though it omits error conditions or edge cases.

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 has no parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per rule. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it effectively describes the tool's behavior without needing to explain parameters.

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 reads Dataview fields, explains two specific operations ('extract' and 'search'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'dataview.fields.write' for mutations. This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiation.

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 guides when to use the tool (to read fields) and explicitly mentions the write tool for mutating fields. It explains the two operations but does not explicitly state when not to use it. The context is clear enough.

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