get_frontmatter

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a read operation. The description adds minimal context beyond the annotation by specifying the data type (YAML frontmatter) and target (Markdown note), but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format or behavior if frontmatter is missing.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the action and resource efficiently, earning every word.

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?

Although the description is adequate for a simple read tool, it does not describe the return format or behavior when frontmatter is absent, and it provides no parameter context. With no output schema and missing parameter semantics, the description is minimally complete but leaves gaps that could confuse the agent.

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 has two required parameters (vault, path) with no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain either parameter or how they relate to the operation, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from parameter names. This is a significant gap that the description fails to compensate for.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the exact resource: YAML frontmatter properties from a Markdown note. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_note (which reads the entire note) and update_frontmatter.

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?

Usage is implied from the name and description—if you need frontmatter, use this tool—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like read_note or update_frontmatter. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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