Read note frontmatter (full or single key)

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

Description confirms read-only behavior, aligning with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It adds context on returning full frontmatter vs specific key, but does not disclose error handling or missing frontmatter behavior.

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 core purpose. No superfluous information; every word earns its place.

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?

Description covers input behavior and output variants adequately. Lacks explicit return format or error cases, but the tool is simple and the input schema is fully documented.

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 already describes all 3 parameters (path, title, key) with coverage 100%. Description adds value by explaining the effect of omitting key, but does not clarify the relationship between path and title parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns parsed YAML frontmatter, with or without a specific key. It distinguishes from sibling tools like obsidian_read_note (full note) and obsidian_frontmatter_search (search across notes).

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?

Description implies usage: when you need frontmatter values. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or specify when not to use it, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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