query_notes

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are 'note headers' (not full content), comparisons are type-aware, and the 'match' mode only affects 'where' conditions. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but the query nature implies no side effects. Overall, it provides sufficient behavioral insight.

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 purpose, and then details the condition format. It is efficient but slightly ambiguous with 'as note headers' – could be clearer about what that means. Still, no wasted words and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the query mechanism well but lacks details on the return format (what fields are in 'note headers') and pagination behavior (limit/offset defaults). Given no output schema, these gaps reduce completeness. It adequately explains condition syntax and filters but misses output structure.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by detailing condition formats (scalar vs. operator objects), the list of operators, and type-awareness. It also clarifies semantics of 'match' and how additional filters work, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 finds notes based on frontmatter conditions and returns note headers. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_notes (full-text) and list_notes (simple listing) by specifying the frontmatter query capability and the types of conditions supported.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for structured frontmatter queries. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the sibling tool list implies its niche. It offers guidance on the 'match' parameter and additional filters, which helps in decision-making.

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