Resolve Alias

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), yet the description adds real behavior: matching is case-insensitive, includeBasename mirrors Obsidian's own resolution fallback, and 'every note' signals multiple results are possible. It omits what the result looks like (paths vs. note objects), which with no output schema is the remaining gap.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core matching rule and followed by the option and the recommended workflow. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, this covers purpose, option semantics, and workflow. The one missing piece is return shape (list of matching paths, ordering), which matters given there is no output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: case-insensitivity is not documented in the schema, and the 'Obsidian's resolution fallback when no alias matches' framing explains why includeBasename defaults to true and when it fires.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find every note whose frontmatter aliases: field contains the given name') plus matching semantics (case-insensitive). This is clearly distinct from siblings like search_notes or search_by_frontmatter, which search content or other fields.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Use to translate a human-friendly title like My Project into the actual note path before calling get_note,' which names the downstream tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., when the path is already known, or when a content search is needed), so a 4 rather than 5.

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