Synapse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about what is read (YAML frontmatter metadata) and the return format (parsed key-value pairs), which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and action, the second specifies the output. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior), and clear purpose, the description is mostly complete. It could improve by mentioning error handling or format specifics, but it adequately covers the core functionality.

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 100%, with the parameter 'path' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples for the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 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 the specific action ('Read the YAML frontmatter metadata'), resource ('from a vault file'), and output ('Returns parsed key-value pairs') with examples (title, tags, date, status). It distinguishes from siblings like vault_read (likely reads full content) and vault_write (writes).

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 implies usage for extracting metadata from vault files, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like vault_read (which might return raw content) or vault_search (which might search metadata). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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