query_frontmatter

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions supported predicates and AND logic, which are behavioral traits. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only (safe), any side effects, performance implications, or the format of the result. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 two sentences, efficiently covering purpose and key usage details without fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and adds necessary details. No wasted words.

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 complexity of the 'where' parameter (nested objects, multiple predicate types), the lack of an output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, constraints on frontmatter field names, or provide examples. The tool has 3 parameters but only partial description of one.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions predicates (relating to 'where') but does not describe the 'vault' or 'limit' parameters. The vault parameter's purpose is implied but not explicit, and limit's meaning is clear from schema but not reinforced.

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 action ('Filter notes by their YAML frontmatter') and specifies supported predicates and combination logic. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_note or search, but it doesn't clarify the output format (e.g., returns note paths or IDs).

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 explains how to use the predicates and that multiple keys are AND-combined, which gives usage hints. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search tools for full-text search, read_note for reading content). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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