validate_frontmatter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only says 'validate' without stating whether the operation is read-only, what it returns on success/failure, or whether it has any side effects. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple validation tool, the description is adequate in terms of when to use it, but it omits details about the validation result (e.g., error format, pass/fail indication) and what 'the schema' refers to explicitly. The presence of an output schema might mitigate this, but the description itself does not provide that context.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (path and frontmatter) at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional context about parameter interactions or selection logic, but it does not need to since the schema already explains them.

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 action (validate), the object (note frontmatter or supplied dictionary), and the criterion (against the schema). It is specific and distinguishable from other tools.

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?

Provides explicit timing guidance: 'Use this before creating or updating notes.' It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the use case is clear enough.

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