get_frontmatter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it reads only frontmatter (not body) and is cheap, but does not disclose potential issues like missing frontmatter behavior, error handling, auth requirements, or rate limits. More behavioral context would be beneficial.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. First sentence states core functionality, second sentence adds valuable use case context. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema, the description could clarify the return format (e.g., parsed YAML object). However, the tool's narrow scope and clear input minimize ambiguity. The description adequately covers the essential context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 has 100% documentation coverage for the single parameter 'path' ('Note path (.md optional)'). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it reads parsed frontmatter (YAML metadata) without the body. It specifies the verb 'Read' and resource 'frontmatter', and distinguishes from siblings like 'read_notes' by focusing only on metadata. The use case of inspecting status, aliases, dates, or custom fields is explicit.

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: when you want a cheap inspection of metadata before reading or editing the whole note. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, but the use case is clearly stated and aids agent decision-making.

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