obsidian_get_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the return type but does not mention error handling (e.g., missing note, invalid path), whether the operation is read-only, or what happens if no properties exist.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action. However, the Args and Returns sections could be more concise, and the blank line is unnecessary. Still, it is efficient overall.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is almost adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context such as error states or edge cases. It is minimally complete but not robust.

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%, meaning the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The Args section merely lists parameter names and types, which are already in the schema. No format or usage details are given (e.g., path relative to vault? full path?).

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 purpose: 'Get all frontmatter properties from a note.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like obsidian_set_property or obsidian_search_by_property.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't differentiate from reading the note content or searching by property. The description lacks any usage context.

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