obsidian_get_properties

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It states it's a retrieval (read-only) but doesn't disclose what happens with notes that have no frontmatter, the return format, error behavior for missing paths, or performance/auth needs.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Fully appropriate size for a one-parameter retrieval tool.

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?

Adequate for a simple read tool, but with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and no param guidance, an agent lacks details on return shape and error handling for missing notes or empty frontmatter.

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 0% (no description on 'path'), but the baseline for a single path param with an obvious meaning is 3. The description adds nothing about path syntax (vault-relative? extension?), so it doesn't compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Specific verb (Retrieves) plus precise resource (all frontmatter properties of a note). Distinguished from obsidian_get_property (singular, likely a single property) and obsidian_read_note (full content) by emphasizing 'all frontmatter properties'.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to get the frontmatter/property metadata of a note. No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (get_property, read_note), and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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