obsidian_properties

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'Read' clearly indicates a non-mutating operation, which provides appropriate transparency for a read-only tool. It does not mention error cases or return format, but these are not critical for a straightforward read operation.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does. It does not explain return values, but the phrase 'Read frontmatter properties' adequately implies the result. Minor gaps around edge cases exist but are not significant for this simple tool.

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 covers 100% of the parameter 'file' with a clear description ('File path (relative to vault root)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('frontmatter properties from a note'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like obsidian_property_set (which likely writes properties) and obsidian_search (which searches content).

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 usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, which is acceptable for a simple read tool but lacks direct comparison.

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