get_note_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether missing files error or return empty, whether tags are computed or stored, or any performance/caching behavior. It merely lists metadata categories already implied by the name.

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?

A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler or redundancy, though it is arguably too terse to carry usage or behavioral context.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining the return shape, error behavior, and read-only nature. It leaves all of that to inference, making it incomplete for a tool an agent must call 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema (filepath with example, includeTags with default). The description adds no parameter detail beyond 'frontmatter tags', so baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata for a specific note') and enumerates what the metadata covers: size, timestamps, frontmatter tags and properties. This is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling read_note, which likely returns content, but the word 'metadata' vs the sibling name does some 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?

No when-to-use guidance. The description never states when to choose get_note_metadata over read_note or how it relates to search_notes/list_notes. An agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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