frontmatter.get

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It only says 'read', but does not disclose error handling (e.g., missing file, invalid keyPath), whether it modifies state, or what happens with empty frontmatter.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, directly communicates the tool's purpose and a key feature (dot-notation).

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 read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but omits details on return format and error states. Given sibling complexity (30 tools), more context on when this tool is appropriate would improve completeness.

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 33% (only keyPath described). The description adds the concept of dot-notation for keyPath, but does not explain file or vault beyond the schema. Some added value, but incomplete for low coverage.

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 verb ('Read'), resource ('frontmatter from a markdown file'), and adds specificity about dot-notation support. It distinguishes from siblings like frontmatter.delete and frontmatter.set by indicating this is a read operation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as metadata.read or file.read. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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