Find notes by frontmatter predicate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by explaining the exclusivity of predicates and the behavior of each predicate type (e.g., 'contains' works for array values). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences: first states purpose, second provides usage context and an example, third clarifies predicate behavior. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded and highly efficient.

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?

While the description covers purpose and predicate behavior well, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., list of note paths or IDs). Given no output schema, this information would help an agent understand the result format. However, the usage example implies the return can be used for subsequent operations, partially mitigating the gap. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not full completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description reinforces predicate semantics, especially the exclusivity rule and the meaning of 'contains' for array values. This adds insight beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 'Find every note where frontmatter.<key> matches a predicate.' It specifies a verb ('find') and a resource ('notes by frontmatter predicate'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like obsidian_search (general note search) and obsidian_frontmatter_get (retrieve one note's 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?

The description explicitly says 'Useful as a precursor to bulk frontmatter_set' and provides a concrete example. It also states 'Predicates are exclusive: pass exactly one of equals, exists, contains,' giving clear instructions on how to use the tool. This effectively guides when to use it and how to structure calls.

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