query_notes_tool

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavior disclosure burden. It discloses tags AND semantics, valid sort_by values, inline field matching syntax, and the data.items shape, which is substantive for a read-only query tool. It does not explicitly state read-only or side-effect-free, though 'query' strongly implies it.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then syntax details, then output shape. Each sentence carries distinct information with no filler. It is telegraphic but effective.

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 9-parameter query tool with no annotations, the description covers the core query behavior and output shape, and an output schema exists to define returns. It is still incomplete as a selection aid because it does not explain when to use this tool versus search_notes_tool/list_notes_tool, and several parameter semantics remain implicit. Overall it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for tags (AND), sort_by (allowed values), and inline_field_filter (key:: value syntax), and it lists output fields. However, frontmatter_filter, status, limit, vault, folder, and sort_desc semantics are left to their names, leaving several parameters underspecified.

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 names a specific operation ('query/filter notes') and enumerates the filter dimensions (tags, status, frontmatter, inline fields), so an agent knows what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from list_notes_tool or search_notes_tool, so the differentiation burden is not fully met.

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 given on when to choose this tool over siblings such as search_notes_tool or list_notes_tool. 'Dataview-like' hints at intended use, but there are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations.

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